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.

But the fact remains she is married to and fully supports a man who slept with a pupil

by support, do you mean still married to, or openly condones and supports his actions.

For this woman, who has committed no crime herself, it seems that she will be put in the position where she either has to leave her husband or leave her job.

Doesn't seem right. Keep in mind, since men are more often the perpetrators of violence, sexual or not, it seems that this rule will disproportionately affect their partners (i.e. women).

A trainee teacher with a parent or a sibling who has a past conviction for violence ( such as a fight) may well think twice before entering teaching. How can they be sure that they will not need to return to the family home at some point? I lived at home when I initially began teaching. Many teachers do.

Remember that "sex crimes" could include a 16 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

A sex offender? Really? Someone who should never be able to teach, or be a scout leader - or marry a teacher?

The rules are crazy. I thought this government had said that it would look at child protection rules to ensure that common sense was being applied. Clearly not.

If a person is found guilty of a sex offence against a child and their partner is a teacher or Head Teacher responsible for safeguarding children, how can that person be trusted to carry out those duties when they actively accept, defend or excuse a person in their own life who has committed such an offence?

since you have posted no news article, I don't know the details. But from what you have said above, she says that the accuser is lying. That's different from saying I believe the accuser, but I think it's ok to do those things.

On some level they must think it is OK or excusable or not believe the victim or minimise the damage in their own head.... Whatever coping mechanism that person has to enable them to live with someone found guilty of a sexual offence,

I am sure it is pretty difficult, but I can't pretend to know what's going through her head.

The point, however, is that SHE has done nothing wrong. To answer your question (what is the alternative?), keep in mind that she may have lots of reasons to stay with the man (kids for example, has been otherwise a good partner). I think all sorts of measures can be taken, but it just seems wrong to punish someone who has done nothing wrong herself.

What DrSeth said.

And also, why is that law thinking it's necessary to do that sort if checks fir teacher or TA working with under 8yo but not over?

If there is an issue with paedophilia, then I would have thought it would be easier to groom an 8yo and over than a 5yo who will more supervised by the parents anyway?

And if this is all about lack if moral and judgement... Well then you will clearly get into a minefield as who are you to say what is morally acceptable or not?
A teacher lives with 2 men, acceptable? A teacher likes kink and BDSM, acceptable? A teacher had an abortion, acceptable?
If you are talking about lack of judgement and having a moral compass, then shouldn't you also take that into account???

And then a teacher is living in an abusive, violent, relationship, acceptable? A teacher is living with a partner who is sexually abusing them, acceptable?
Oh sorry I forgot, that teacher would be the victim. But that's ok to punish her too because really, she lacks judgement and a moral compass right??

Sorry, I'm really struggling up see who on earth it's protecting and how it will make any difference at all. It might feel 'right' to some people because it fits their own idea of what us morally acceptable but it doesn't mean it's right to do so.

And it's not because the 'laws' already exists for even younger children that it is appropriate or fair or useful.

I've been sitting on the fence with this one. I've read and nodded at very articulate and compelling arguments for both sides.

I do think the recent example of the teacher who has been found guilty of having sex with a student is a bit different though. His wife, a headteacher, standing by him, is implicitly saying that she accepts his behaviour. So a headteacher is saying she accepts a teacher having sex with a pupil. In this particular scenario I wouldn't be happy of she was the head teacher at my a school my children attend.

I think therefore that rather than a blanket ban a case by case risk assessment / risk management policy would be sensible.

MumInHants

I thought this government had said that it would look at child protection rules to ensure that common sense was being applied.

This government said a lot of things ...

And all that discussion about the fact that said teacher might not report issues as readily etc.
how often had it happened? Do we have ONE case where a teacher or TA didn't report something they should have (aka not doing their hog adequately) because they were blind due to their relationship of a sex offender?
Can some one give me a case?
Because what would be the point if having a law to stop something that never happens?

Just sticking my head in to say that the reason the news coverage about this issues says that hundreds of teachers have been SUSPENDED rather than sacked is because this isn't a cut-and-dried issue. Yes living with an adult who is "a disqualified person" makes you a disqualified person as well, but you can apply to have that disqualification waived by Ofsted. It's been a process carried out in the wider childcare industry (childminders/nursery assistants and managers) for years. Where the other adult has a conviction that is fairly inconsequential such as the getting into a drunken fight 20 years ago and had a clean record since, the disqualification almost inevitably gets waived. So people shouldn't be put off training to become a teacher because they know their partner has one conviction for assault in their youth.

What is the logic behind it? I don't understand! Is the assumption that staying with someone who has committed a violent/sexual offence means condoning that offence?

Because that is clearly rubbish. There are loads and loads of women who are with men who have cheated on them, who would not in any way condone their actions. Some have DHs who have done things that are actually criminal, and have forgiven them.

Surely this is a matter for the people in the relationship to decide, and none of anyone else's business? I can't see how it puts children at any genuine risk since there should not be contact between the partner and the teacher's work?

Or am I missing something?

shovetheholly

What is the logic behind it?

It's politicians logic:

Something must be done.
This is something.
Next !

Remember though the regulations only apply to the under 8s, so in the situation where the teacher slept with the 16 yo, if his wife is a secondary head then this legislation wouldn't cover her. Which is why I guess she's been suspended while the LA works out what to do.

I actually believe she should be sacked, or at least demoted, funnily enough given I am opposed to this legislation - I wouldn't trust her idea of safeguarding as far as I could throw it.

shovetheholly

I can't see how it puts children at any genuine risk since there should not be contact between the partner and the teacher's work?

Or am I missing something?

Yes, many voters will recall the murders of two primary school children by the partner of a TA at their school. However, the TA's partner, Ian Huntley, had no convictions, just a series of allegations that hadn't got as far as court, so this would not have prevented Huntley acquiring an image as a safe, trustworthy adult to the pupils at the school where he worked.

Where she worked, that is. Not he.

The correct decisions were taken in this recent case.