What makes you happy ?

Apparently – and I’m not entirely sure where the idea for the ground-breaking decision came from – “Anyone convicted or cautioned for a sex offence against a child will be banned from teaching automatically”. Really ?
That just makes SO much sense to me.
Does it you ?

Isn’t it amazing that it has taken newspaper stories, parliamentary questions and political juggling to do something which is blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else in the UK ? The actual question remember is not that they are not now allowed but who allowed this to happen in the first place ? Who decided that sex offences were not a bar to being in intimate contact with children. Who made that choice ? When ?

…had found 10 cases where registered sex offenders had not been placed on List 99 …………- since 1997.

Remember 1997 ? That was when Tony and his cronies came in to Parliament with the anthem from D:ream of “Things can only get better”. It would seem then that Tony wasn’t thinking of children… his govt, his record, his accountability.

Ms Kelly said there “must be no witchhunts against hard-working teachers”.

WHAT ? Who mentioned a witch-hunt ? No-one. Who is trying to divert our attention ? Ruth Kelly. Who is using language that implies those that seek information are doing wrong ? Ruth Kelly. Who IS wrong ? Ruth Kelly.

She told MPs she “deeply” regretted the concern caused to parents by recent stories of sex offenders in schools.

Has she said that she regrets the risks that were run ? No.
Has she said that she believes she was wrong ? No.
Does that wording imply that she actually regrets the revelation more than the circumstances ? Yes.

Ms Kelly said she was “determined… to lessen their concerns” and “overhaul” the system.

Resign or be sacked.

“Child protection is our number one priority, we have got to get it right.”

She said she was looking to take steps to make sure all sex offenders were barred for life from working with children.

WHAT ? It was up to HER to decide if this sex offender could have the job. SHE could have said NO. SHE could have protected children at that time. SHE decided it was perfectly fine for this sex offender to work with children. It was HER choice. SHE has only changed her mind because of the furore and if she was so damn convinced she had got it right then she should have stood her ground.

Ruth Kelly got it hugely wrong.
Ruth Kelly ignored the Police.

She should be sacked.

BBC

What she said to Parliament today:

The case which has come to public attention this week raises very serious issues.

Really ? Wonder why ? and it was YOU who caused this.

I take full responsibility for all decisions taken in the department on whether individuals should be placed on List 99, the list covering those barred from working in schools.

So leave your job then. Do the decent thing.

Initial inquiries indicate that there have been a small number of cases where, on the basis of advice, in accordance with the process that has been in operation for many years, ministers have made the decision not to include on List 99, an individual on the Sex Offenders Register.

We are searching for a better excuse, but right now we are going with “It’s happened before so why not let it again”. Ruth Kelly – when was the last time you had an independent thought ? You know, one you made yourself, all on your own ?

It is of the utmost importance that the House and wider public are not misled by any information put into the public domain.

I used to have a boss like this. She always said “But you aren’t in possession of all the facts” and we all knew she was lying. This is Ruth Kelly pretending she has a great big secret which would fully justify everything she did but as we cannot know ….

I will also review the decision making process surrounding such cases and any immediate policy implications.

Would it surprise anyone if we were not reassured by this ?

In the meantime, with immediate effect, I will personally consider any cases of individuals on the Sex Offenders Register where a ministerial decision is required as to whether they should be placed on List 99.

And if they do offend I’ll be sure to blame the Police or someone else for not giving me all the facts.

Make our schools safer places – sack Ruth Kelly

The Times

Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, had approved the appointment of a registered sex offender as a PE teacher.

What in HELL does that stupid bloody woman think she was doing ?

police, who believed he had accessed paedophile websites

She let this man work with children ? And she was deliberately allowing him to be in a situation where children would be in a state of undress and vulnerable ?

Secretary of State for Education had ‘considered all aspects of the case, including sex offender registration, and decided that the risks of the teacher being allowed to continue teaching were acceptable’.

You can bet they weren’t her damn kids can’t you…

There have been suggestions that she believed the evidence against the man was inconclusive.

I don’t give a flying one what she – in her ivory-bloody-tower – thought. Don’t you think she should have listened to the police ? They had

deep reservations that their risk assessment was overruled.

This woman was first elected and then put in charge of the education of the future of the country by Tony “Let’s just forget Iraq” Blair and she then decides it’s perfectly fine to let a convicted sex offender work with children. Is that an action that can be condoned by anyone ? At all ?

Her action is indefensible.
Sack her.

Observer

That’ll be the one trying to get parents to stop their primary school kids from watching (the brilliant) Little Britain.
I know a couple of teachers and they are wonderful people but sadly this idiot will get teachers branded as humour-free zones. I think children should be actively encouraged to watch comedy – and that includes Little Britain. Why ? The main reason is that it might make them laugh. There’s enough doom gloom misery and foreboding oozing continually from our screens – or that scuzzy daytime TV crap – so why shouldn’t kids have a chance to laugh at things ? why can’t they smile and repeat such antics and accents in front of their friends ? Why can’t they be challenged by that humour ? Why can’t that humour be used as a basis for discussion ? Or maybe the headteacher just doesn’t like top comedy show ? Isn’t humour part of the OFSTED world anymore ? Jeez, they’ll be banning Santa next (I’m sure somewhere has). A note:
Dear Lynne Hargreaves,
You don’t tell parents what to do in their own homes and I’m sure they won’t start telling you how to run a school.
Thanks,
A Parent.

Two example problems.

The squiggly lines are square root. The power is 2 in both cases.

Is it possible to explain those two ‘sums’ ? I am finding them incomprehensible.

Coming soon ! A feature on an employee of the above school. If you are involved with that school, employed by that school or the school board or are a parent of a child attending that school then you may well be interested in the activities of an art teacher there. After all, if you are putting the care and welfare of your child into the hands of another, shouldn’t you be completely confident in that person’s abilities and attitudes ? I think you should, which is why I will assemble some infomation which may be of interest to you.

As I mentioned above, there is a teacher at Foose School who I – as a parent – would be deeply unhappy to have teaching a child of mine. Here is why (all the ‘source’ links lead to Usenet and are text only. Other links should be considered Not Safe For Work):

I’m open and honest about my life and my posting habits.
source

Everything quoted here was written by this teacher on Usenet – a fully searchable index of posts that is owned by Google.

Really? From what I’ve read, it seems Christ was heavy into scarification and suspension.
source

Is this the attitude of a teacher ? Is this the attitude of someone who should be educating children or even in charge of children ? Is a parent who believes in Christianity comfortable with this ?

>I don’t need to attend church to prove my faith.
Not approaching it from that angle. You’re not proving your faith, you’re building contacts. Networking. Meeting people who will take interest in you, take you under their wing, offer you a job? Yeah.
source

So he now says he does not go to church to worship, but to network. So he believes that Christ was into suspension and scarification and now admits to going to church just to make contacts with others. What does he believe ? Does this bring his religious values – and therefore the effect this would have on those young people in his charge – into question ? What does he say when the subject of Christian religion comes up ? How does he conduct himself in times of Christian festivals ?

On females, Curt James says:

Yep, pussy, pussy, pussy. My ideal is a girl with thick hair, around 5-7, 39-34-42 (go ghetto booty!), blue eyes who loves receiving oral sex and prefers it Snoop Doggie Dog-style.

and
Thought this URL may be of interest to some here:
http://www.lastgasp.com
Was on the prowl for an issue of Horny Biker Slut.

then he adds
I had issues 2 through 7 or 8. Did a Google search and found additional issues as well as:

http://www.wildseduction.com/featuredartists/John_Howard.html

Cool John Howard info.
And, from there (click on _Price List_):

http://www.wildseduction.com/price_list.html

he invites others to read a porn site
Yeah, because I’m all about bodyart.
Navel piercings, ass antlers, earrings. Yup.

http://voy.voyeurweb.com/main/vog01/vs20041230-120942/index.html

and in a thread about the infamous Janet Jackson Superbowl incident:
> Every breast and every nipple and every dark area
> (areola) around the nipple vary somewhat from male
> to male and female to female.
Not sure that that’s even true. There are many nipples that are similar as well. You’re not “reading” the right magazines, viewing the right Web sites, or hanging in the right circles apparently.
source / source / source / source

Hi. I’m Erica. I haven’t posted here in, um, seconds. Maybe it’s been minutes.
source

Changing his name to get around killfiles – from what I have read many many people have this teacher blocked in their newsreader because of his attitudes, abuse and sheer volume of inane postings. So he chooses to thwart them and keep annoying them. I believe acting maturely should be a key principal of those in charge of impressionable minds.

I have to say that if ANY teacher at a school my children went to posted this sort of material I would contact the Headteacher to discuss matters in detail. But then about the children in his class he says

sometimes I was thinking how creative at being a brat
source

then tells the parents otherwise. He is not telling parents the truth about their own children.

Are you happy that Curt James is in charge of your children ? Around your children ? To be a role model for those in his charge ? I would not be – but how you choose to use this information is up to you. They are your children.

I want to make something very clear – nothing in this post is fabricated. It has all been posted by Curt James to the internet. I am not slandering him. I am not calling the reputation of either Foose School or it’s other teachers into question – I am sure they are well thought of. What does amaze me is that such a school chooses to employ someone like Curt James and allow him such close contact with their – your – children.
Would you ?