To not care she has won just glad she's not working with children

[Catvsworld]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593287/Primary-school-teacher-sacked-standing-paedophile-headmaster-husband-wins-compensation-unfair-dismissal.html

Tbh I am just glad she is no longer working with children

Standing by her awful husband shows she cannot keep children safe let alone her won daughter and in a school were issues of cp may come up its important the head is shit hot on it not sympathetic to the abuser who may even be a teacher

she could have stayed married but not lived with him or had any contact plenty of older generation who won't divorce but have separated

I'm not sure how I feel about it TBH.

One the one hand I see a woman who's committed no criminal act herself, who knew nothing of her husband's criminality, and has made no attempt to minimise what he has done or condone it. Yet she's paying a price for his wrongdoing. And that seems unfair.

OTOH, as a parent I would be lying if I said I would not have any concerns about her professional judgement based on her decision to put her marriage vows before a full condemnation of her husband's behaviour evidenced by leaving him.

Forgiveness is a wonderful gift and absolutely her choice to make, but I'm not sure it's compatible with her role as a teacher. Many professions have a code of ethics that govern their members' personal lives. Police officers are not allowed to associate with criminals after all.

I actually think this was a fair outcome too, and I'm surprised by how vehemently some people disagree.

As far as I understand it the law appreciates that individuals' strongest ties are to their spouses and family members. Where a profession requires a duty of care to another group (i.e. children) whose best interests may be at odds with the intentions of a person's spouse/family member (as evidenced by a conviction), the law will not allow that conflict of interests.

Essentially they're saying "if you're committed to your husband, which the law believes would be your top priority, you cannot fulfil the role of this job, which requires a conflicting group to be your top priority".

The law will not knowingly put you in a position where you have to choose between your husband and your legal responsibilities; they simply will not allow you to hold the position that results in this conflict. Which I believe is fine. Equally you are not obliged to testify against your spouse in court.

If you are referring to my post, I was asking if the school would be considered liable in that scenario.

Yes Pounding I completely agree with you.

Hmmm, rereading and yes I see people are using the fact she was awarded compensation to say the law doesn't see it this way. However there is wide scope for interpretation, as is the function of justice.

I have, on a much smaller scale, come into contact with this application of law; a family member was a dinner lady and was liable to lose her job if her husband accepted a caution for "assaulting a minor" (a bonafide revenge accusation from his teenaged daughter for removing her mobile phone from her hand - she did confess this to me) instead of being declared "innocent". But perhaps had that happened she would have won an appeal. But the first application would have been her dismissal.

If there's any convictions of any kind then I am not allowed to be a childminder, even if that conviction isn't mine.

ANY kind? Really? I think you mean any conviction relevant to working with children.

Catsworld - you do realise that when calculating what she is entitled to, the tribunal can rule that she be given her job back, don't you?

I'm astounded that so many people on this thread are blindly saying they wouldn't want her teaching their kids. What if the teacher were a mother forgiving her son, instead of a wife? Same rules apply if a mother let her son live in the family house? We'd sack her as well, would we? Or a father? Or a sister livng with a brother? Where exactly would we draw the line whilst we are hositing up our judging pants?

What if it was her child? Would you expect her to kick him to the kerb?

If her husband had abused her child, yes, I would expect her to kick the husband out.

If her own son had raped her own daughter, then yes, I would expect her to kick the son out.

Forgiveness is all nice in theory, but as soon as it leads to supporting criminals in more ways than just making sure they have a nice warm prison cell and enough to eat ... things get very problematic.

When I mentioned the 'if it were your child' thing earlier no one managed to answer Cheesemaker... Surprise surprise.

No, I mean if her child had committed similar offences to the husband in this case. Would you expect her to kick her child out to protect her career?

What about if her son had abused children outside the home Vestal - because that's what her husband did (viewed indecent images)? Would you throw your son out if he posed no danger to anyone in your home? I'm not sure I could do that (although I wouldn't hesitate to call the police if I found out they were committing crimes against children).

What if the teacher were a mother forgiving her son, instead of a wife? Same rules apply if a mother let her son live in the family house? We'd sack her as well, would we?

Ur, yeah, I think we would sack her. It's a conflict of interest at the end of the day; if you can foresee a situation where the responsibilities of a person's job may be at odds with them protecting or defending their spouse or child - which any sane person must assume would take priority should the situation arise - they are not in a position to hold that job. End of.

Would you expect her to kick her child out to protect her career?

Unfortunately in those circumstances I think she would be hard pushed to protect her career. Such is the impact of other people's crimes on those around them. No man is an island I'm afraid and some people really do lose it all in favour of the good of society.

• Through no fault of their own I should say.

Why is it a conflict of interest? I could live with someone and totally reject their past behaviour and their moral compass (whether I'd choose to or not is another matter but maybe for a child of mine).

"The teacher is in a public space, has no privacy and her husband would not be allowed to enter school property."

The school teacher has authority over the children in the school though and most children would view her and her family as "safe" which might put them at added risk (as in Ian Huntley case)

"What if the teacher were a mother forgiving her son, instead of a wife? Same rules apply if a mother let her son live in the family house?"

What if a childminder turned out to have a paedophile son? She would have to choose between her son and her career.

BarbarianMum Tue 17-May-16 12:58:04

"Why is it a conflict of interest? I could live with someone and totally reject their past behaviour and their moral compass (whether I'd choose to or not is another matter but maybe for a child of mine)."

It is a conflict of interest if there is even the slightest suspicion that her work might give her husband added access to children.

Perhaps I could also live with somebody whose moral compass I rejected. But I would then feel obliged to arrange the rest of my life so nobody else was at risk.

I'm not talking about a child minder. I'm asking whether a teacher should be forced to throw her child out the house if he was convicted of similar crimes to the husband in this case? And should she lose her job of she didn't?

Barbarian unfortunately the possibility of sexual offenders re offending is a well known one. There are registers of the convicted for years following each offence for good reason.

It's probably with this in mind that conflicts could arise. Or for example, your "son" in this instance wants you to let his past be behind him and allow him to move on with his life; he gets upset when you're reticent to allow him to attend at school plays; he says he wants to see you're work because he's proud of you, and you're always making him pay for the mistakes of his past! You want to support him emotionally and allow him to be redeemed in your eyes, so you let him come. But you wouldn't were he a stranger to you and you had no emotional tie to him, because your first priority would be cut and dried, "this is a safe-guarding issue for the children". Can you see where I'm going?

With sexual abuse of children, we know that "forgiveness" often means "I don't think it is really so bad, we should just get on with our lives, so I will pretend to acknowledge that it is bad and then ask for forgiveness".

In fact, I am very wary of the idea of forgiving crimes that were not committed directly against your own person.

The pope forgiving the man who tried to kill him (and is in prison already) - yeah, okay.

A woman forgiving a man who raped a child - doesn't matter if the child is her own - is extremely dodgy.

When the Christian idea of forgiving your enemies evolved, it was common to revenge a crime by wiping out the criminals whole family, or in some cases, tribe.
Facing the social judgement that came with NOT avenging your family was the hard way.

Forgiving a sex offender nowadays is very, very often the easy way. I would not be so sure that her motivation is religious.
Forgiving her husband was the option that didn't require her to change anything ... well, except now, it is.

PaulAnka I think she would probably lose her job regardless. Sometimes the good of society sees the little guy get thrown under the bus. It's not all about the rights of the individual, and I believe that's rightly so.

What would you say if she stayed with him if she had young children herself, young children who social services would take away given the nature of her husband's crime. She has committed no crime, would it still be OK to stand by her husband as she vowed to do.

Sounds like this would constitute the knowing putting of children at risk. Or at least allowing them to remain at risk. This would surely be directly pertinent to the faith we can have in the in loco parentis aspect of her teaching role.

A different sort of thing that just thinking that someone lacks judgment because they choose not to leave a convicted criminal.

eatsleep yes, framed in those terms I guess I agree with you.

BarbarianMum - he made the images rather than just viewed images made by another. And he did so through a terrible abuse of trust using his position. It requires a level of trust far greater than I possess - and I think most people posses in all honesty (though that may well be our shortcoming - to believe someone capable of doing that would not pose a risk to anyone again in the future, even if you forgive the crime already committed. I think that's why people are saying it shows a lack of judgement on the part of the teacher and are therefore questioning her suitability in a safeguarding role.

The trouble is that while she should be aiming for rehabilitation and forgiveness after serving your sentence, that has to be balanced against the needs of the vulnerable. Can you imagine the uproar if, in a year or two's time, there turned out to be a paedophilia scandal at that teacher's school and then it came out she was married to a man with a conviction for making indecent images of children? There would be much wringing of hands and asking of questions as to why nothing more was done...

I honestly think this is a hugely difficult ethical dilemma and I'm glad I'm not the one who had to arbitrate on it. But ultimately, I think it is better to destroy one woman's career than to potentially jeopardise the welfare of vulnerable children, and that compensating the teacher financially for her lost career was the best way of overcoming the unfairness of the situation.

Pounding ditto