Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ruth Kelly: Stay or Go

What should Ruth do?


  • Total voters
    42
MikeMcc said:
I believe that she should go. Quite rightly there is a ban on membership of organisations such as the Freemasons, why should membership of Opus Dei be viewed in a different light.
Is there??? :eek:

That's news to me. :confused:
 
Uma said:
Cautions are given to those who admit the offence and decide not to go to court to prove their innocence and the police don't quite have enough evidence. Hence a caution is agreed - still guilty.

I know someone who accepted a caution for the sake of his family because he didn't want it to go through the courts. Like fuck is he a danger to children, he was set up by some nasty minded fuckwit who has robbed the teaching profession of a damn good teacher.
 
JTG said:
I know someone who accepted a caution for the sake of his family because he didn't want it to go through the courts. Like fuck is he a danger to children, he was set up by some nasty minded fuckwit who has robbed the teaching profession of a damn good teacher.

I've come across a person in a similar position. A gay man who liked younger men got involved with a young man who assured him that he was 17. The relationship was consensual but unequal with my aquaintance buying presents for the younger man and giving him money (not a lot just a tenner here and there I believe) after a couple of months gay mans boyfriend turned round and said 'I'm 15 3/4 and if you don't give me money I'll tell the police.' Blackmailer drained gay man of finances and when he couldn't give no more blackmailer made a complaint about unlawful sex to the police. My aquaintance refused a caution and fought it through the courts and lost and got six months on a segregation unit. The fact thatr he had been blackmailed wasn't even taken into account.

I dn't think that this is the only case of it's type either. I've heard of U16 young men patrolling the saunas and bars trolling round for victims to blackmail in London.
 
JTG said:
I know someone who accepted a caution for the sake of his family because he didn't want it to go through the courts. Like fuck is he a danger to children, he was set up by some nasty minded fuckwit who has robbed the teaching profession of a damn good teacher.

Even in the case of the guy high-lighted in the news, he was 34 at the time and he had a relationship with a girl of 15 (he insists it was non-sexual at that time). At best it still amounts to mis-judgement. I would rather that there was extreme caution in cases such as these and the simplest way of carrying that out is a blanket ban.
 
i'd like her to go, purely because the idea of an Opus dei loon running our education system is one I find well scary.
however...I'd not like her to go after this because
a) it's a departmental failure, rather than one ascribable to the sec of state, and
b) a sacrificial lamb would cause further oil to be poured onto what is - for me
- something the media are wildly overdoing, where the usual hysteria has won out.
 
chooch said:
Yes. I'd have no problem with adults legally seeing a cartoon which depicted child sex, in the same way I'd have no problem with adults legally reading a book which described child sex (of which I can think of at least three on my shelves). Or a film depicting gang rape. Or a painting of genocide. It shouldn't be the law's place either to prescribe what the proper reaction to these would be.
No. It's a work of art. It can be a pleasant work of art, or an unpleasant work of art, an edifying one or a challenging one. Unless it's explicitly saying 'go out and treat black people badly', in which case it's incitement.
I prefer warped :)
I see you point and I suppose it depends on the context - art? hmm not sure how artistic it could be...

Obviously I have seen rape scenes in films etc, usually shown as an act of violence against the women/man to depict a certain act/character. But if the film was there to provide sexual gratification and it was based on these scenes, then there would definitely be a problem with it. If you are reading books which are about violence over women/children, then warped could be a very kind way of depicting your 'interests' for want of a better word.
Still, as long as it stays on your shelf and you don't share it/give em to charity. :(
 
JTG said:
I know someone who accepted a caution for the sake of his family because he didn't want it to go through the courts. Like fuck is he a danger to children, he was set up by some nasty minded fuckwit who has robbe the teaching profession of a damn good teacher.
are you sure about that? Sorry if it seems harsh because you know him and I don't. But you don't just look at their ability to teach, you have to look at the person. You don't go on the SO register for down loading soft porn. Why was he set up by a fuckwit? :confused:
 
KeyboardJockey said:
I've come across a person in a similar position. A gay man who liked younger men got involved with a young man who assured him that he was 17. The relationship was consensual but unequal with my aquaintance buying presents for the younger man and giving him money (not a lot just a tenner here and there I believe) after a couple of months gay mans boyfriend turned round and said 'I'm 15 3/4 and if you don't give me money I'll tell the police.' Blackmailer drained gay man of finances and when he couldn't give no more blackmailer made a complaint about unlawful sex to the police. My aquaintance refused a caution and fought it through the courts and lost and got six months on a segregation unit. The fact thatr he had been blackmailed wasn't even taken into account.

I dn't think that this is the only case of it's type either. I've heard of U16 young men patrolling the saunas and bars trolling round for victims to blackmail in London.
There are alwasy going to be miscarriages of justice unfortunately and it is up to the courts to decided based on the evidence. What DfES should not be doing is reviewing the decisions once a SO charge has been given. Victim can appeal ofcourse. Best staying away from young looking boys then...
 
This is where i'm thankful Wales has control of its own education;
a) Ruth Kelly's problems don't affect us.
b) The new privatise schools thing has been rejected by the Welsh govt so it won't happen here. Local state comprehensive schools for us.
 
Uma said:
There are alwasy going to be miscarriages of justice unfortunately and it is up to the courts to decided based on the evidence. What DfES should not be doing is reviewing the decisions once a SO charge has been given. Victim can appeal ofcourse. Best staying away from young looking boys then...

The advice to stay away from young looking blokes is a good one but I think there should be some means of appeal from inclusion in list 99 if it is one of those cases where people are convicted for an offence but there are very strong mitigating factors. However, I don't believe that a loonspud like Kelly should be allowed to judge this it should be done by a panel of psychiatrists, child sex experts and some lay panel members.
 
Uma said:
Obviously I have seen rape scenes in films etc, usually shown as an act of violence against the women/man to depict a certain act/character.
...But if the film was there to provide sexual gratification
The intention of the film barely matters. Acts of violence, rape and sex with children don't do much for me, but whatever the film's about there'll be somebody out there that it does something for. The law can't say 'you're not allowed to get sexual gratification from any film featuring the following subjects:' and it shouldn't be based on the fear that someone might get sexual gratification from something depicted that most people consider distasteful or wrong. That way lies a spectrum of fuckwittery from Mary Whitehouse to the Taliban.
If you are reading books which are about violence over women/children, then warped could be a very kind way of depicting your 'interests' for want of a better word.
My life would be poorer if I'd not read Crime and Punishment or seen Man bites Dog or experienced any of the other million works of art that deal with characters whose acts I find largely repugnant.
Taboos don't help anything.
 
Uma said:
are you sure about that? Sorry if it seems harsh because you know him and I don't. But you don't just look at their ability to teach, you have to look at the person. You don't go on the SO register for down loading soft porn. Why was he set up by a fuckwit? :confused:

Yes I am sure thanks. The 'evidence' was flimsy as fuck, I've known him since I was six (and he was 18 or so), I spent many hours under his supervision when I was a child and many more hours helping him supervise kids when I was grown up.

Put it this way, does taking a video of a childrens' drama group's play as a souvenir for the kids and for yourself make you a nonce? No it fucking well doesn't :mad: :(
 
Ruth Kelly has not given in to public and media irrational opinion that all teachers should have their pasts scrutinised to the point of absolute breach of human rights. Very unlike a Labour IMO. I find her actions honourable, and the fact that she has put herself in the firing line for all the kneejerk Right Wing media and morons who go red as soon as they hear the word sex offender, extremely brave.

When you look at her track record, and those of her colleages you find a Religious extremist who want to brainwash our children into her own dogmatic beliefs but nothing more. Now, when you look at the others. Charles Clarke, who helped to try and cover over the story of the shooting at Stockwell, and who wants to arm all policemen, a move even unpopular with much of Britain's constabulary; Jack Straw, who, as Foreign Secretary only acted as an errand boy during the Middle East conflict and any decision made on Europe and, of course, Tessa Jowell, who has only used her post as Culture Secretary to help business deals for her equally corrupt husband, David Mills. I forgot Tony Blair, who has admitted to lying to Parliament and refused to apologise because he felt his actions were justified.
 
Red Jezza said:
i'd like her to go, purely because the idea of an Opus dei loon running our education system is one I find well scary.
however...I'd not like her to go after this because
a) it's a departmental failure, rather than one ascribable to the sec of state, and
b) a sacrificial lamb would cause further oil to be poured onto what is - for me
- something the media are wildly overdoing, where the usual hysteria has won out.


I second this. It's the Opus Deism that scares me. She should possibly go for her support for taking the education system back in time.
 
Back
Top Bottom