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

...um... no?

Why not. By staying with her husband she is condoning dishonesty thus making her a financial risk to others. In addition, her husband might persuade her to commit fraud herself.

"Why not. By staying with her husband she is condoning dishonesty thus making her a financial risk to others. In addition, her husband might persuade her to commit fraud herself."

Acasualobserver - that doesn't follow. You would have to show that theft and child abuse were exactly the same - and they aren't. Recidivism rates are much higher for chid abusers, the impact and effect is much greater, the pre-meditation required is much more difference.

So it's a busted argument really. Also, accountants are by nature greedy untrustworthy gits already - so you would be hard pressed to corrupt one any further.

more difference higher, apologies trying to edit and write at the same time

By staying with her husband she is condoning dishonesty thus making her a financial risk to others

It's not the "condoning" that presents a risk though is it. In fact I haven't once mentioned how she feels about her husbands actions as I believe it's a red herring - it isn't in the least bit relevant.

The risk is her contact with and connection to a paedophile. Her contact and connection to him presents a risk to children.

My accountant's contact with and connection to a thief does not pose a risk to me; he is not more able to rob me as a result. If it were FRAUD however, well an accountant may be liable to be struck off surely? Lawyers, doctors, accountants; they can all be struck off for having connections which may pose a risk to those they serve.

In fact that's the case in SO MANY jobs!

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?

We have more information than just that though. Given no indication that she knew anything about the crimes while they were happening; that she did not condone them; that from her perspective she is choosing to stay with a
'repentant sinner'; that she has indicated to governors that she will stick by him so long as he shows "unequivocal repentance" for his crimes, then I see nothing to indicate that children at her school are at any increased risk from her presence than they would be without it.

Of course people understandably might feel uncomfortable and unhappy if she is there, but you asked whether I thought she posed an increased risk.

accountants are by nature greedy untrustworthy gits already - so you would be hard pressed to corrupt one any further.

unexpsoc

JAPAB you're considering her risk to be minimised because of the additional information that she:

"did not condone them"

and that she will "stick by him (only) so long as he shows unequivocal repentance"??

I think that's ludicrous. When assessing risk I would put the sum total of ZERO STOCK in the assurances of an individual and how they "feel" about things.

She didn't condone them? What's that got to do with anything? He is a convicted paedophile with whatever % chance of reoffending and strong emotional ties (objectively speaking - they are married!) to this woman who has a position of authority and responsibility over children.

Risk assessment based on FACTS = DONE!

Thank you, differentname. I had hoped that the story made that clear, but obviously not to everyone.

This is about religion, among other things. I think that aspect is as important as anything else.

How many of us would stay with a husband who got his rocks off like that? Not many, I suspect; add to that betrayal the cost of indulging himself. To stay for the simple reason that she has made a promise (a promise which he has broken) to God shows misunderstanding of the contract one makes with God upon marriage. IMO. So I think she is misguided and foolish, and therefore unsafe.

Acasualobserver - that doesn't follow. You would have to show that theft and child abuse were exactly the same - and they aren't

Well, no, obviously but all analogies are imperfect in this way. The exactly comparable thing would be that thing itself. I suppose I am asking how far we should support a system of guilt by association. There is nothing to suggest this woman condones her husband's actions - remaining married to him does not show that - or that she herself poses a risk to children.

There is nothing to suggest this woman condones her husband's actions

Who gives a damn if she condones them?? This has nothing to do with it!!

acasualobserver - esactly my point. Arguments from analogy are almost always a logical fallacy and therefore don't help this situation.

I am not sure it is about a guilt by association - it is about an undermining of trust in her ability because of her actions. Whether this is right or wrong can not be known until she retires blameless and it never impacts OR she allows herself to be used by her husband. Therefore there is an increased risk. It is even further increased by the fact she believes that her marriage vows override any other considerations irrespective of the actions of her husband (it appears from the limited information we have).

I think from the school, and the governors' perspective this is the best possible outcome. They've removed someone whose judgement is questionable so dont have to face parental wrath; nor do colleagues have to worry. so it will cost them (or the LEA?) some money, but that's do-able

I'm sure her husband is unequivocally repentant that he was caught!

Whether this is right or wrong can not be known until she retires blameless and it never impacts OR she allows herself to be used by her husband.

We already know she has been blameless to this point. She has an unblemished record. She knew nothing of her husband's proclivities before his conviction why should she be influenced by them now? If my husband has an inclination to commit a certain sort of crime what logic dictates that I can be manipulated into sharing his inclination?

but unfortunately acasualobserver the perception that parents will have is important if it means they no longer trust her. As there have been lots of parents (I assume anyway) on here saying they would no longer trust her that seems to prove this would become an issue.

I am not saying that is fair on her, and I am not saying it is right that she pays for her partners crimes. But if she chooses to stay with him, knowing this will give the perception of heightened risk, she can't also continue as a teacher.

Really, she should recognise this, and if she can't then I would further question her judgement.

Nobody on here can know that he will or he wont offend again, nobody on here can know whether she will be swayed by him in the future or not. That is the risk that will be playing in the minds of parents, colleagues and governors.

We already know she has been blameless to this point.

You might call believing someone and continuing to be married to a person, who has repeatedly lied to you for years, concealed himself from you for years and harmed children to whom he owed a duty of care, merely because "God says so" being blameless.

I would call it willfully ignorant.

"that she has indicated to governors that she will stick by him so long as he shows "unequivocal repentance" for his crimes, then I see nothing to indicate that children at her school are at any increased risk from her presence than they would be without it."

This is the woman who had no idea of his activities before. How exactly is she going to know if he stops being unequivocally repentant this time? He didn't exactly advertise his tendencies before, did he?

You don't need to fear that she will let herself be manipulated into actually helping him take illicit photos. All you need to fear is that she will, in a few years time, be tempted to let him come with her to the school fete or pick her up at school one day or let the children she teaches know that he is Miss' husband but fail to include the other piece of information.

I do not for a moment believe that she will knowingly let herself be manipulated. But if she believes in his repentance, then she will be open to being used as an innocent tool. If she believes in his repentance, how long will she go on policing him? Standing up to him and reminding him why he is not going anywhere near her school. Watching everything she says so she does not inadvertently betray any information about any pupil which he could use to gain their confidence? Year after year? While she believes in his repentance...

We already know she has been blameless to this point.

Sorry, just to add - everyone is blameless up to the point where you do something wrong and get caught for it. Ian Huntley was, I believe blameless until he wasn't. Past performance does not reflect future intentions.

Well I wouldn't want her working with my children. Id be refusing to send my child into school.
Standing by her disgusting peado of a husband. She's almost as guilty as him.

eatsleephockeyrepeat I think that's ludicrous. When assessing risk I would put the sum total of ZERO STOCK in the assurances of an individual and how they "feel" about things.

So a person who indicates that they do not approve of husband's actions and who will only stay as long as she believes him to be repentant, is no less a risk than the person who tries to make excuses or minimises what he did, or even says she sees nothing wrong with it etc etc?

Don't parole boards do this in part, when assessing if someone is ready for early release? The person who convincingly indicates remorse might stand a better chance than the person who says they do not care?

Not that she committed any criminal acts of course.

*The person who convincingly indicates remorse might stand a better chance than the person who says they do not care?

Not that she committed any criminal acts of course*

Well precisely, she's not the one who's committed any act, so what she has to say about it doesn't really matter (as it might were she the perpetrator).

Her risk factor is associated with her association, not her personal position - hence her position and feelings on the matter are unimportant. And unfortunately for her she can't help her association (without leaving her husband, which is unquestionably her choice); but no-one can help the fact that that association poses a risk!

I am not saying that is fair on her, and I am not saying it is right that she pays for her partners crimes.

On this we can wholeheartedly agree.

But if she chooses to stay with him, knowing this will give the perception of heightened risk, she can't also continue as a teacher.

This sounds immoral to me. To be punished for someone's perception of you cannot be justice.

Also, the arguments posters are making in terms of the risk she now poses are based only on speculation about her state of mind and theoretical possibilities which are completely unevidenced in relation to this individual. On that basis we would ban all male teachers on the grounds they were more likely to commit sexual offences against children.

Sorry, just to add - everyone is blameless up to the point where you do something wrong and get caught for it. Ian Huntley was, I believe blameless until he wasn't. Past performance does not reflect future intentions.

That applies to all of us! You, me and every unconvicted sex abuser. Must we all be excluded from teaching on the grounds we haven't been caught yet?

no-one can help the fact that that association poses a risk!

You are presenting opinion as fact!

Losing her job isn't about punishing her, its about protecting the children. I could not let my child be taught by someone who remained living with a convicted paedophile. And i highly doubt anyone on this thread would be happy about it either.
Risk
is always theoretical, it doesn't matter if she might have not got manipulated by her husband, the fact that she can remain living with and 'forgive' a convicted peadophile presents the risk that she might and that risk is too great to take.
I also think the ability to forgive her husband minimises his abuse, ire not her place to forgive him its not a crime against her, the children he abused are the ones who can decide whether he can be forgiven or not. Her marriage to her husband was more important than the children he abused. And theres the potential to minimise abuse in the future, perhaps if a child comes to her who has been abused. I could not trust her to take abuse of children seriously enough. That doesn't mean she wouldn't take it seriously, its that the chance she wouldn't is there and I don't think she can work with children with that chance.