Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

157 replies

Catvsworld · 17/05/2016 11:35

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

OP posts:
jacks11 · 17/05/2016 13:13

I think it is a difficult one because clearly this woman did nothing illegal.That said, teachers have a role in child protection and I'm not sure where that sits with being married to and living with (once he is released from jail) a convicted paedophile. What does this say regarding her judgement on matters of child protection? I'm not clear on whether she has condoned her husband's actions or it's simply a case of forgiving the person, not the crime IYSWIM. Morally, perhaps not legally, it doesn't seem clear cut to me.

On the other hand, if it was a relative or an adult child I'm not sure she'd have been sacked. She obviously believes she cannot leave her husband due to her religious convictions.

RedToothBrush · 17/05/2016 13:17

If you were a parent who suspected a child of being sexually abused, could you have any faith / trust in this woman?

Would you find it much more difficult to confide in her, as a direct result of her husband's conviction and her not leaving him?

The trouble is, that as a teacher you are in a position of trust. If that trust is lost or somehow compromised by the teachers home life then yes, I do think its relevant.

Her ability to teach, isn't in doubt. But then teaching isn't just about learning to read and write; its also pastoral care too. The public have to have full confidence in those in that role.

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 13:17

I think it is better to destroy one woman's career than to potentially jeopardise the welfare of vulnerable children

Agreed. Her right to be a teacher has unfortunately been trumped by the wider right of society to be protected from harm.

compensating the teacher financially for her lost career was the best way of overcoming the unfairness of the situation

Again, completely agreed. However necessarily her individual rights were indeed abused. So compensation is in order.

A nice summary there Pounding.

JAPABimtheonewhoknocks · 17/05/2016 13:21

That said, teachers have a role in child protection and I'm not sure where that sits with being married to and living with (once he is released from jail) a convicted paedophile. What does this say regarding her judgement on matters of child protection?

Not sure it says anything. We really can only assume how she would react to a CP matter that crops up in her job.

differentnameforthis · 17/05/2016 13:26

My concern would be that he could eventually coerce her into taking similar pictures that he took, therefore giving him "access" to children.

If she doesn't condemn his actions, how long before she enables them.

At my children's cost? No thank you.

My sister in law stood by as her husband sexually abused girls, she stood by him during his incarceration. She was brainwashed by him into accepting what he did as his right. She isn't around my children. And won't ever be.

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 13:28

JAPA not sure what you're getting at really. When you assess the risk of something you're obliged to speculate about how things might pan out.

If you were the person whose job it was to decide who is "allowed" to be a teacher, based on their potential risk to children, would you honestly say someone married to a paedophile presented no greater risk than one who wasn't? And would you consider that risk acceptable? The person with that job ALSO has a duty of care, and they have to consider the worst case scenarios, which would surely be enough to deem that teacher an unacceptable risk.

corythatwas · 17/05/2016 13:35

This was not just any old paedophile: this was a man who very deliberately used his access to children through his role as a headmaster to smuggle in a camera and take illegal pictures of the children. Surely if you were his wife and felt obliged to stick by him, the first thing you would want to ensure was that neither of you went near a school again in any official capacity? The fact that she did not do so suggests that she is not just exercising her Christian forgiveness: she is minimising his crime.

GoblinLittleOwl · 17/05/2016 13:36

Standing by her awful husband shows she cannot keep children safe
How very unpleasant. This is mob mentality.
What price professionalism?
Her husband is not in the school, nor any part of her working life; she has not been corrupted by him and has an exemplary record.
This is discrimination by association.
I hope she now campaigns to get her job back. I would work with her.

Alisvolatpropiis · 17/05/2016 13:36

The outcom is right, because she didn't do anything illegal.

However it is also right that she doesn't teach again. By staying with him she condones his behaviour.

jacks11 · 17/05/2016 13:38

JAPAB

Agreed, we have no way of knowing how she would react to a CP issue at work. The same is true of any professional unless they have had to act on CP concerns previously, which would give some guidance as to how they would act.

However, some people may believe that her behaviour with regard to her husband would give some guidance as to her views on such matters and how she would act professionally. Clearly, there is no way of knowing until/if that happens.

As I said, I'm a bit torn. This teacher didn't do anything wrong and has lost her career as a consequence of her husbands actions/not distancing herself from her husband. This is manifestly unfair to the individual.

But I'm not sure that I would want to have this teacher in my child's school. Which I do realise is hypocritical given my above statement. I don't think I would have a huge amount of confidence in confiding a child protection concern to someone who I knew lived with a convicted paedophile (although obviously I would do so in a professional capacity, or find another teacher to discuss my concerns with).

BoatyMcBoat · 17/05/2016 13:42

When I was a child, I knew a girl who was horrifically bullied at school by her class teacher, from about Y1 up to Y6. The sort of treatment meted out to her every school day would not happen nowadays, so it wasn't just unfair marking or unkind remarks, it was spitting, hitting, screaming in the child's face, demeaning, humiliation, the works. This teacher always chose a girl in her (teacher's) class, perhaps as an example to the others to ensure good behaviour and hard work. In previous years, the parents of the scapegoat generally removed the child and sent her to another school, or the child's torment stopped when they went up a year. For us, the teacher went up every year with us.

I asked that girl, many years later, why her parents kept her there. Apparently, her mother was religious but her dad was not. Her mum had promised God to bring the children up in the religion and the dad had vowed to allow the children to be brought up in the religion. Therefore the dad left all religious matters to the mum, who 'made up for' her dh's lack of religion, by insisting that the children attended religious schools. There was another school of the same religion nearby, but it was state run, not private and therefore not good enough. The child therefore remained at the correct religious school and her religious welfare was ensured, at the expense of her well-being, education and mh.

Presumably God was satisfied; certainly the mother must have thought so.

So I have very little sympathy for anyone who sacrifices the well-being, or even possible well-being, of others for the sake of religion. I'm sure God is big enough to look after himself.

PaulAnkaTheDog · 17/05/2016 13:45

Don't turn this into religion bashing Boaty.

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 13:47

I really think some people are getting too hung up on this woman's rights; her right to be a teacher, how she hasn't done anything wrong, how she shouldn't be the victim of his wrongdoing and how she has a right to that specific job etc.

But this isn't about her rights. She has been compensated for the infraction upon her rights... but she has not been awarded her job back. This is about the rights of the many outweighing the rights of the few; the rights of the many being the right to be protected from harm, not just the right to work in your chosen profession. So she will not be awarded her job back, because her right to be a teacher is somewhat less important that the rights of children to be protected from harm!

acasualobserver · 17/05/2016 13:47

If a woman's husband is convicted of theft should she lose her job as an accountant?

unexpsoc · 17/05/2016 13:48

"This is mob mentality."

Yes, that is part of the social contract. The rules are made by the many and this sometimes mean the few (or the individual) suffer.

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 13:50

If a woman's husband is convicted of theft should she lose her job as an accountant?

...um... no?

corythatwas · 17/05/2016 13:51

GoblinLittleOwl Tue 17-May-16 13:36:34

"Her husband is not in the school, nor any part of her working life; she has not been corrupted by him and has an exemplary record."

I am still worried that in years to come he might be able to use her working there to get access to the school, either through an innocent receptionist or on fetes/open days or simply (if it is a small place) because children she taught knew he was Mrs X's husband and therefore assumed he could be trusted.

If I had a son who got his kicks through cruelty to animals, I might feel obliged to stick with him, but I would give up any job working with animals for fear that he would try to get at them through me. Yes, it would be hard but lots of people have to give up their jobs for family-related reasons (illness, bereavement, move of other half due to job loss etc); most of those people haven't done anything to deserve it either.

differentnameforthis · 17/05/2016 13:53

are you saying if a teacher lives with or family is a convicted criminal then they shouldn't be a teacher?

I am if that conviction is of a CSA nature.

She hasn't closed ranks or condoned what he did. She just believes that he is contrite and won't do it again. Except CSAbusers have one of the highest recidivism rates. And she would say that, wouldn't she..

Her religion is obviously a large part of her character. And the priests who sexually abused children as a matter of course...their religion not a large part of their character? People have done all manner of heinous things under the guise of religion

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 13:54

But I think both solicitors and accountants will be struck you off if their husbands bankrupt them!

eatsleephockeyrepeat · 17/05/2016 13:55

you

HisNameWasPrinceAndHeWasFunky · 17/05/2016 13:56

What this all comes down to for me is would I be happy for my children (or any children for that matter) to be taught by someone who continues to live with a known pedophile?

Absolutely not.

I would not have much, if any, respect for that person or their judgement.

RedToothBrush · 17/05/2016 13:59

If a woman's husband is convicted of theft should she lose her job as an accountant?

Does that undermine public confidence in the safety of your child on matters of safe guarding?

(its got to be said though, that if the woman had a joint account with her husband and thousands of pounds suddenly and mysterously appeared and she didn't question it, she might well have some questions to ask in front of her professional body).

differentnameforthis · 17/05/2016 13:59

She obviously believes she cannot leave her husband due to her religious convictions. How long before her religious convictions means she cannot defy him, if he asks her to take similar pictures.

Her husband is not in the school, nor any part of her working life; she has not been corrupted by him and has an exemplary record. But she has access to children. We do not know she hasn't been corrupted by him.

Don't turn this into religion bashing Boaty. Boaty isn't doing that, she is merely stating that people do stupid things in the name of religion. Which they do.

BertPuttocks · 17/05/2016 13:59

Even when I started working as a volunteer in my children's school, it was made very clear to me that any association with a person with criminal convictions would be taken very seriously indeed. I find it very difficult to believe that the teacher didn't realise that continuing to live with a convicted sex offender would affect her career.

The safety of vulnerable children is far more important than anyone's right to be a teacher.

HisNameWasPrinceAndHeWasFunky · 17/05/2016 14:02

I'd love to know how the husband demonstrates his "unequivocal repentance"?

The pedophiles I've had the misfortune to know, may try and tell people what they want to hear, but actually believe very firmly that there is absolutely nothing wrong in their feelings and actions towards children. They think that society is wrong/ill educated/not "clever" enough to understand their enlightened state.

Swipe left for the next trending thread