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.

never I can't see why political affiliations would be relevant to working with vulnerable children? It has no effect on anyone else.

Never really? Metaphorical? Well I never got that...oh no... I KNOW it was meant as a metaphorical stick ffs.

You can't compare political beliefs to bloody sex crimes!

I feel that violent/ sex offenders should be banned from school grounds. I feel the legislation is ill drafted and I'll thought out. Staff partners have no need to come to school.

Imagine a teacher's 14 year old son commits a serious offence is it really fair to say he/she cannot teach? The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old. Surely it is wrong that a ten year old can ruin his mother's life. Such legislation would also make impossible for school staff or their partners to become foster carers to troubled teens.

what I think is possibly worse is a parent might have to choose between loosing their job or making their child homeless if they got in a bar fight.

Tired surely it only applies to adults?

I can to a point understand that argument gold but the problem is that there are so many people in a child's life who just might be credible

I agree. I've seen a ridiculous knee jerk reaction amongst a group of parents who had some very minimal and significantly distorted information about someone who their children could have come across occasionally in the school playground at pick-up time recently. Masses of hysteria and "How can he be kept away from our children?" type angst which made it clear that they have given no thought to the fact that anyone their children come across could be a sex offender.

I don't think you are BU. While I am a bit unsure about teachers or TAs living with a convicted sex offender, I do realise that living with does not equal being a partner. With increasingly multi-generational households, you can't expect teacher/TA to be responsible for the actions of their parents or adult children. In some cases, adult children might actually have to live at their parental home as a part of their sentence.

It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and schools have not been given the support to implement it in a nuanced way, whatever the government says. It might explain why two of the best and long established TAs at my son's school suddenly left.

Exactly, Nicknacky! Nor does a teacher living with someone who has a decades-old conviction.

The legislation doesn't only pertain to sex crimes though, MrsT, which is my problem with the legislation.

There is an argument that gets trotted out from time to time that teachers shouldn't be members of the bnp. I also disagree with that and I hate the bnp by the way.

Someone up thread (apologies, I can't remember who it was) mentioned staff suspended while waivers applied for. If that is the case, and each circumstance looked at on it's own merit, then I have no issue with the proposals. If anything, I think it should extend to drug use.

However, I dint agree with a member of staff been punished for a one off incident many years ago.

I don't think a teacher should have to declare their partner/ housemates spent convictions. It is fair to bar people from the school grounds with a know history of sex offences or violence.

really Even if it is a conviction relating to sexual offences against children?!

UKIP voters should not be allowed to teach! Who in their right mind would vote for UKIP- there is not one of the public faces of UKIP who is not bonkers.

Just out of interest, are there similar rules for social workers, paediatric nurses and doctors, admin staff of all organisations who work with young children, etc? What about CRBs for volunteers?

Just out of interest, are there similar rules for social workers, paediatric nurses and doctors, admin staff of all organisations who work with young children, etc? What about CRBs for volunteers?

As far as I know there aren't for doctors - DH has never mentioned anything.

But then I am not a criminal; it is he with the shady past!

It seems that some on this thread are saying that as teachers have a responsibility to be a role model, that is why you would not want them fraternising with a sex offender or violent criminal.

Tbh I would prefer it if nobody I came into contact with was living with a sex offender or violent criminal. If it shows poor judgement in teachers it shows poor judgement for every member of society. Therefore nobody should live with this type of person. In which case where does rehabilitation and serving time come in?

Teachers are role models, yes, but this legislation seems to be taking things way too far, as a pp said up thread, a conviction for assault years before you even met the person, how would you even know about that? Or will partners and housemates now be required to sign something? Would that even be allowed?

Obviously avoiding situations where grooming etc would be a realistic threat is sensible. Policing a teacher on the grounds of an historical and non related event is not.

Btw, I would be uncomfortable with the idea that my child's teacher was living with a violent criminal, and I would not knowingly associate with one. But I do think the boundaries are getting blurred.

Lulu I hate UKIP but am guilty as charged for being absolutely stark raving bonkers

I'm not sure how living with a sex offender makes a teacher a threat to children.

You'll get a load of reallys and faces now.

The unfortunate fact is we all need to be aware and vigilant and on our guards against paedophilia. All the time. Mrs Jones' husband may well be bona fide; Mr Smith who teaches music may not be. But he is no risk as he hasn't been caught.

My cousin is married to a serial offender- drug dealing, violence- GBH, extortion. He has been tried for murder. Is her judgement skewed? Not on the surface but it certainly is. She is a intelligent woman who has never achieved anything because she lives by the rules of this bully. Would I want her teaching my child? Or supervising my child? NO. What happens when she witnesses bullying? She ignores it at home, pretends it does not happen, gives in , placates him, covers it up. What would she do at work?

If he had a conviction for smoking cannabis 30 years ago and nothing else would I feel differently? Yes.

I didn't think that serious offences were ever spent.

Yes there is huge difference between a teacher being a sex offender and a teacher living with a sex offender. People on the sex offenders register should be barred from the grounds of all schools. Ie. If Mrs blogs' husband/ sonis a sex offender then he should be banned from the school fete, school play or any other function. Possibly the head should know that Mr blogs must not be allowed on school premises. However I do think mrs blogs should denied employment if she has a clean crb and good references.

There has to be balance between safeguarding and avoiding unfair discrimination.

BMO You seriously can't see why that may be an issue or potential threat to children? I'm the last person to worry about sex offenders accessing my children but I wouldn't be happy at all if I knew this.

between obviously anyone can be a potential risk but someone with a conviction is a known risk. That can't be ignored if their partner works with a vulnerable group.

Wasn't this legislation bought in post Ian Huntley? (I might be wrong). I thought that was the scenario they were trying to guard against in the future.

The sex offender element I can understand more due to the understood psychology and reasons we have a register and keep track of offenders. The person with access to the children could be being groomed, they will bring home confidential sensitive information about children they teach which anyone in their household could without their knowledge get hold of.

The violence element I can't work out. Is there any evidence that theres a knock on effect of association with someone who has historically committed a violent act? The student bar brawl is the classic example. Twenty years and no other instances, arrests or issues I can't understand why living with that person causes any risk to the school or children.