The secrecy must go

January 20th, 2013 at 8:51 am by David Farrar

Kathryn Powley at HoS reports:

A physical education teacher at a Christian school has admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old student – one of 11 teachers found guilty of serious misconduct last year whose actions have been permanently suppressed.

The New Zealand Teachers Council has posted a warning advising the public and media it is illegal to publish details of disciplinary proceedings.

The warning is based on a little-known blanket suppression rule that has never been enforced, and is more draconian than the rules used by the criminal courts and most disciplinary bodies.

The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended the PE teacher’s practising certificate for three years, and has ordered him to tell prospective employers of the offence if he returns to teaching.

However because of the new warning we can’t report his name. Nor can we report his school. Strictly speaking, the Herald on Sunday shouldn’t be reporting the misconduct and suspension at all.

Teachers Council (Conduct) Rule 32(1), set in place under statute in 2004, means nobody may publish any details of a tribunal decision. That means any reports you’ve read in newspapers or seen on television are against the law.

Media organisations were unaware of this rule until late last year, when the crystal-clear warning was posted on the tribunal’s website.

“No person or organisation may publish any report or account of a hearing, publish any part of any document, record, or other information produced at a hearing, and/or publish the name, or any particulars of the affairs, of any party or witness at a hearing.”

That means communities may not be told about the two teachers found guilty of physically abusing students last year, another one found to have sexually abused a vulnerable student, six teachers who were found guilty of theft or fraud, one who tried to get a gang member to “cap” her principal, not to mention the PE teacher in the inappropriate relationship.

Some of these teachers were struck from the teachers’ register last year, others were allowed to return to the classroom – but the community is barred from knowing about any of them.

Herald on Sunday editor Bryce Johns wrote this week to the tribunal’s chairperson, Alison McAlpine, urging that action be taken to amend this rule and others.

I agree, the rule should be repealed or amended. If the Council won’t do so, then the enabling legislation should be amended.

The tribunal’s rules mean all hearings are held in private and all parties are anonymised, unless the tribunal approves an application otherwise. Anybody may apply to the Disciplinary Tribunal for the PE teacher and his school to be named.

Lind said the reason for strict rules around publishing was because key witnesses were almost always children or young people who had been through a traumatic event. Anonymity was one way of assuring parents and innocent children they could come forward.

But Lind said he would support a change that allowed the council to impose suppression orders case by case, instead of details being suppressed automatically.

That is how it should be. Secrecy should not be the default.

Tags:

52 Responses to “The secrecy must go”

  1. Paulus (2,554 comments) says:

    Oh – you cannot change this – it’s the Teachers remember – those who are there to teach and look after our children at school.

    Doubt if it will happen – the unions will gang up against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    ….”Teachers Council (Conduct) Rule 32(1), set in place under statute in 2004,”….

    Another union friendly piece of legislation passed during Labour’s reign of corruption. To hell with kids’ welfare & parents’ concerns so long as their union mates’ transgressions can be swept under the mat.

    Heaven forbid that the deviants should ever have to be publicly exposed for what they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    Slightly off topic, but it occurs to me that this is just another example of the need for a government operated Sexual Offender List.

    I stress government operated because privately run lists are fraught with danger. For example, the current SST list takes it information from private individuals, media reports and basically anyone that wished to add a name to it.

    The list is accessed without any counselling regarding the information it holds, nor does it give precise and accurate details regarding the crimes and is incomplete.

    A government controlled list would be accessed only on a ‘need to know basis’. It would of course hold full and accurate information direct from court files, and any information released would be done so in an appropriate manner. Recipients of the information would be counselled on how to handle any difficult situation that would arise, e.g. dealing with an employee with a sexual offending record.

    There is a warning though, such lists are not effective in reducing sexual offending.

    Unfortunately the down side of them is that many believe if a persons name is not ‘on the list’, they must be safe.
    Not so, there are many potential sexual offenders in our communities that have not yet offended in such a manner to be caught, or reported. There are also those who have offended seriously, and never been caught.

    The emphasis in our communities should always be about keeping our children safe, teaching them to recognise inappropriate behaviour, and how to deal with any situations that occur in order to ensure their own safety. Children should know that it is ok to tell, no matter what they have been threatened. However, all this needs to be done in such a manner that the child does not become fascinated with the concept, and invents incidences to seek attention. A tough balance to find.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. backster (2,120 comments) says:

    “The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended the PE teacher’s practising certificate for three years, and has ordered him to tell prospective employers of the offence if he returns to teaching.”

    I am sure we can rely on this teachers honesty and innate morality to explain to prospective employers if he returns to teaching. After all he will be fearful of re-appearing before the Teacher’s Council Disciplinary Board if he doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    Judith

    Any list compiled along the lines that you suggest would bring into creation a separate Government department complete with another forty five layers of bureaucracy & the associated expense.

    The SST have managed to show how simple it is to create a list of offenders & shown that it is most useful when accessible by all. There are ample legal remedies for anyone falsely named.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    nasska (5,511) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:38 am

    However the SST list is fill of errors, not complete and is accessible by anyone, without reservation.
    The most important part being it is NOT complete by far. It does not have any of those who have received name suppression on it, nor does it have any of those that haven’t been reported to the organisation.

    There are thousands of convicted sex offenders who do not appear on the list. The SST has neither the expertise, qualification or experience to handle such a list, which in order to be competently managed, could only do so via an association with the Courts, of which is it not legislated to do.

    It would not take an entire government department to run it, and could run inside the existing MOJ structure.

    The main concern is not people falsely named, it is those that are not named

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    backster (1,678) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:29 am
    “The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended the PE teacher’s practising certificate for three years, and has ordered him to tell prospective employers of the offence if he returns to teaching.”

    I am sure we can rely on this teachers honesty and innate morality to explain to prospective employers if he returns to teaching. After all he will be fearful of re-appearing before the Teacher’s Council Disciplinary Board if he doesn’t.
    ——————————

    Yes, being beaten around the ears with a ‘fluffy slipper’ would deter the most perverted offender!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Is it possible that a teacher in this kind of situation is in their early to mid twenties and is having a non-abusive relationship with a student not much younger? If they got married in a few years would it still be necessary for this man to be on a sexual offenders list for the protection of the community? Perhaps none of this applies in this case but it illustrates how Joe Public, such as those posting here, leap to speculative conclusions and why portrayal in the media is probably of limited use. It appears a legitimate point that publicity is likely to deter key witnesses from coming forward and if community protection is a serious issue an application to lift the blanket suppression can be made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    it occurs to me that this is just another example of the need for a government operated Sexual Offender List… There is a warning though, such lists are not effective in reducing sexual offending.

    So why do we “need” a government list for sexual offenders, given that you say it will not reduce offending ?

    Why only sexual offences, why not other crimes ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. BeaB (2,080 comments) says:

    The PPTA has scored an own goal with this mornings ad in the Herald on Sunday. We have all known that teacher with his newspaper and his feet on the desk.
    Today they are texting and on the net.
    Many of us expect that charter schools will hold some of these lazy teachers to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. itstricky (1,689 comments) says:

    Another union friendly piece of legislation passed during Labour’s reign of corruption. To hell with kids’ welfare

    I don’t quite see what this has to do with unions at all. Or Labour for that matter.

    And doesn’t the quote above Lind suggest that the reason that the law exists is to protect kids’ welfare. Hey, it might not do a very good job of that, but that is the intention.

    These truth/intention of these things are always a lot deeper than a two sentence summary by a blogger. I imagine some of it actually makes sense if you read the whole article and then go back to 2004 and understand the motiviation and/or precedents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Is there any evidence that a sex offender list would reduce crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tvb (4,240 comments) says:

    Lind is talking rot. Secrecy in sex trials only exists to protect family who are victims. This is not the case with paedophile teachers who target their students. Openness should be the default.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Tauhei Notts (1,642 comments) says:

    Nasska at 9.09 and 9.38.
    Spot on!
    Judith, I think your favourite opening expression is;
    “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    Judith

    If the SST list was as full of errors as you allege then I would imagine that they would have been sued out of existence by now. I accept that it is incomplete & a fair part of that is due to the crim cuddling suppression laws which see most deviants escape any public censure & are left free to carry on doing what they desire to do. Note that name suppression is unheard of in the USA yet their system still functions.

    Anything run by a government department is done inefficiently…it is the nature of the beast that the arse covering featherbedders employed in such organisations will complicate & mismanage any task assigned to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. itstricky (1,689 comments) says:

    The PPTA has scored an own goal with this mornings ad in the Herald on Sunday. We have all known that teacher with his newspaper and his feet on the desk.
    Today they are texting and on the net.
    Many of us expect that charter schools will hold some of these lazy teachers to account.

    Absoutely nothing to do with the post.

    Also, absolutely ridiculous stereotyping with the standard wah-wah-wah-wah-whine-whine-whine-wah. Most teachers will be returning to work in the coming week to prepare for the year.

    What’s next, want to slag off a beneficiary in this post? Perhaps a public servant? Why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    Weihana (2,727) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:54 am

    —————————–

    I agree with you. All that you say is possible, however, it does not deny the fact that is person has displayed a shocking level of poor judgement. This is a teacher, a person who should display judgement consistent with being a good role model.

    He has not done that, and has now placed himself in a category where many of societies worst offenders stand.

    Whilst this offending is on the lower level, there has been offending by teachers that is very high on the scale. E.G. Thomas Leigh, a teacher at Mahurangi College, pleaded guilty to multiple rape charges with more than 12 victims, over a several years. Convicted in the early 1990′s.

    Despite the years between, and many other such cases, still nothing has been done to adequately protect the young people, including young children involved. That the community would see the words ‘sex offence’ and over-react regarding the severity, is not unexpected, given the almost regular citing of such incidences in our communities.

    I would have thought that teachers themselves would be requesting a better system, to ensure their profession is kept free of such individuals, thus upholding its integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    Weihana (2,728) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:59 am
    ————————–

    No, there is no evidence that these lists reduce crime or re-offending.

    However, there is evidence that sex offenders, who admit their crimes, and are released into a community that is aware, including a family that is aware and supportive and willing to supervise the offender – that such offenders are less likely to re-offend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    nasska (5,512) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:04 am
    Judith

    If the SST list was as full of errors as you allege then I would imagine that they would have been sued out of existence by now.

    ————————-

    Many of the errors have the actual offending wrong, and listed as a lessor offence.

    Given the legal requirements, a private organisation could not operate such a list efficiently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Poor judgment indeed. Do you expect that a few years at college would make a person necessarily that much more responsible and mature than the 17 year old they are teaching? In my view such a person has harmed their career but I personally would not place them in the same category as societies worst offenders. It seems to me that some people act as if a person becomes an adult in a single day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    Tauhei Notts (1,189) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:02 am
    Nasska at 9.09 and 9.38.
    Spot on!
    Judith, I think your favourite opening expression is;
    “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”.

    ———————————-
    Actually my personal opinion is that there shouldn’t be such a list.
    Sex offenders come in a variety of levels, and their offending varies in severity.
    Some sex offenders do not need or deserve ongoing monitoring, but many do.

    No list will assist in reducing sex offending.

    Sex offenders will always feature in our community.

    It is the community that must learn to protect itself by giving our children and young people the skills to deal with these types of people.

    Having said that, there are types of sex offenders that, even the most informed among us, could not protect themselves or their loved ones from.

    Recidivism in sex offending is high, because it is an act that is not a ‘simple crime’. Most sex offenders suffer from some form of psychiatric or psychological illness, and/or have themselves been victims of sexual abuse. (not an excuse but a fact).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    He has not done that, and has now placed himself in a category where many of societies worst offenders stand.

    “HE” ? Where does the article give the persons gender ?

    We do know that it is common for female teachers to be fucking young boys, because as products of our feminist society they are unable to have normal relationships with men. We also know most teachers are women. Why did you assume it was man ?

    The (lets assume) young male “victim” was 17. That does not make the female offender a paedophile. But of course logic is the first thing to go in these discussions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    We do know that it is common for female teachers to be fucking young boys, because as products of our feminist society they are unable to have normal relationships with men.

    Another priceless LOL comment

    Keep them coming, Kea, Anti-Feminist Defender of Manhood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Sex offenders will always feature in our community

    Judith, can you point me towards the Act and section where is an offence to have consensual sex with a 17 year old?

    You (& others) assume the following:

    1. The 17 year old was a girl.

    2. The offender was a man.

    3. That the offender instigated the inappropriate relationship not the “victim”.

    None of you have anything to base that on, except maybe your own sexual fantasies. But do continue, it is very revealing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    Weihana (2,729) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:16 am
    —————————

    I agree. The offending does not make him a sex offender as such, it makes him an idiot (person with poor judgement)

    Such a person can probably mature, and learn from their experiences. Pity he has probably ruined his life in the process of ‘growing up’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,348 comments) says:

    Kea (1,747) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:21 am

    ————————–

    I stand corrected, I automatically assumed, however, to be fair, the percentages are strongly in favour of them being male.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Keep them coming, Kea

    I intend to eszett. Women are not victims and they are not more moral or good than men.

    I know you find the concept of equality and fairness confronting, but I will continue on with my struggle in order to challenge the misandry which has been normalised in our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Judith, we agree then :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    You (& others) assume the following:

    1. The 17 year old was a girl.

    2. The offender was a man.

    3. That the offender instigated the inappropriate relationship not the “victim”.

    None of you have anything to base that on, except maybe your own sexual fantasies.

    Why do you assert those assumptions are based on “sexual fantasies”.

    Is it because you base your assumption on your very own sexual fantasies, Kea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    I know you find the concept of equality and fairness confronting,

    That is very funny coming from you, Kea, who is permanently confronted and threatened in his manhood by women wanting equality and fairness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Why do you assert those assumptions are based on “sexual fantasies”.

    No details of gender were given and no details of the nature of the relationship were provided.

    What else could they be based on ?

    People like you use these stories to push your misandry and feminist agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    What else could they be based on ?

    Indeed, what else? Says a lot about you, Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Keeping Stock (10,167 comments) says:

    Having been support person for a teacher struck off some years ago for benefit fraud, I find some of these recent decisions by the TRB quite extraordinary. Any teacher who has an inappropriate relationship with a student ought to be struck off. Likewise, the teacher who threatened violence against her principal recently ought to have been struck off. There seems to be very little consistency in the TRB’s decisions, and that should be a real concern for parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    eszett, you are not about equality, you are about special rights for women, whom you portray as a vulnerable victim group in order to justify special privilege. It is the typical and un-original feminist narrative, which you have never questioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Scott Chris (5,960 comments) says:

    In my view such a person has harmed their career but I personally would not place them in the same category as societies worst offenders.

    I agree. Each case is unique. Ultimately boils down to the level of power abuse. And I have to confess, if I were a young male teacher I’d find it very difficult to teach 17 year old girls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    You (& others) assume the following:
    1. The 17 year old was a girl.
    2. The offender was a man.

    Maybe there’s a bit of a clue to the gender of the offender in the following – see if you can spot it:
    “The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended the PE teacher’s practising certificate for three years, and has ordered him to tell prospective employers of the offence if he returns to teaching.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Mary Rose, was the “victim” (no evidence who initiated the relationship) a boy or a girl ?

    I am clearly attempting to challenge the automatic anti male assumptions that so many appear to have. I do not see women as victims, which maybe why so many of my female friends seek my advice and company. They know I will give a view that is not shaped around women being victims or based on me getting down their pants. There is a difference between being pro womens rights and being anti male. You do not need to put down one gender in order to elevate the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    Kea – no idea.

    Quick look back and you asked:
    >“HE” ? Where does the article give the persons gender ?

    >2. The offender was a man….. None of you have anything to base that on, except maybe your own sexual fantasies. But do continue, it is very revealing…

    >No details of gender were given

    I was just pointing out the article says the offender was a man.

    Is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Mary Rose, yes I missed that. But it makes little difference. The assumption would be made the teacher was male and the student female. The other assumption would be the teacher took advantage of her. Given that NZ has the most promiscuous women in the world, and is the only country where the women have more sex partners than the men, I question that assumption too.

    http://lifestyle.msn.co.nz/nzmenslifestyle/womenandsex/1026540/kiwi-girls-most-promiscuous-women-in-the-world

    He cited a survey by a condom maker that said New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world, with 20.3 sexual partners on average. The world average was 7.3.

    Kiwi men were also above average with 16.8 partners. New Zealand was the only country where women had more sexual partners than men.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10737380

    How is that pedestal holding up Mary ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Scott Chris (5,960 comments) says:

    I am clearly attempting to challenge the automatic anti male assumptions

    Any idiot knows that most sexual offences are committed by men.

    And as far as initiating the sexual relationship is concerned, it is inevitable that most male teachers will have their female charges flirt with them at some stage. How would you react in that situation Kea? And what would your moral and legal obligations be as an authority figure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    Kea (1,754) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:56 am

    eszett, you are not about equality, you are about special rights for women, whom you portray as a vulnerable victim group in order to justify special privilege. It is the typical and un-original feminist narrative, which you have never questioned.

    I don’t recall ever posting about feminism or women’s rights here, but I am happy to be proven otherwise.

    You on the other hand are constantly posting ridiculously irrational posts about the evils of feminism and how women are out to pussywhip all males and get special priviledges and dominate all males.

    Your behaviour is typical, right down to the hysterical accusations to anyone who challenges you on your idiocy:

    People like you use these stories to push your misandry and feminist agenda.

    Now that D4J isn’t here anymore, you can bravely step in his footsteps to provide us with laughs on this issue

    Nothing but silly rants of someone who hasn’t really given much thought to the issues but feels immensely insecure and threatened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    Kea

    I take on board your comment yesterday that women are no more moral than men & your reference above tends to bear it out. On reflection we may see many more women in the teaching profession fiddling with their pupils as child sexual abuse normally requires the perpetrator to be in a position of trust & authority over the victim. Women have pretty much taken over the schools & colleges.

    What will differ of course will be when the offending comes to the notice of the authorities. The sisterhood will take care of their own & with all powerful unions,hormones as an excuse & blubbing as a back up I don’t expect many to be thrown out of the profession.

    Worst of all most of them are fat with hairy legs…..you cannot help but feel sorry for the young male victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    Kea, the trouble with your attempts to ‘challenge anti-male assumptions’ is that you do so by making anti-female assertions.
    Every ill in society is down to its feminisation (according to you).

    Women don’t want to be seen en masse as victims when they aren’t. But you seem to think that means no woman ever is a victim of anything. Which is lousy logic.
    (And yes, bad things happen to men, too. That doesn’t negate female victims).

    As for the pedestal you have placed me on… if the average is 20.3, I have a LOT of catching up to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    eszett, listen to you go !!! :)

    All this because I dared suggest people should be treated equally and I refused to demonise men. You are trying for the moral high ground, but fail at it, because you have developed no morality of your own and simply adopt what you think is popular at the time. If you lived in a strict Muslim society, you would be crying out for public cannings of women for morality crimes, if you thought that was popular. People like you fool some folk eszett, but you do not fool us all. You need to get off your high horse and develop some common decency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I have a LOT of catching up to do.

    Well you won’t get there sitting around on KB giving me a hard time ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. eszett (2,357 comments) says:

    All this because I dared suggest people should be treated equally and I refused to demonise men.

    lol, all this reaction, just because feminist also want every to be treated equally and do not demonise women or men.

    I am merely pointing out that you are making ridiculous and hyperbolic about a subject and immediately jump to ad hominem attacks to anyone who call you out on it. And you keep doing it again and again.

    It’s the same pattern when people claim that civil rights are not about equality but about privileges and control for minorities. And anyone who stands up for civil rights must hate the whites and western civilisation.
    Or that gay rights are not about equality but privileges and control anyone who stands up for gay rights must hate straight people.
    Or that women’s rights is about dominance and control of men and anyone advocating that must hate men.

    You can disagree and argue about aspects, but silly blanket statement are nothing but attempts at trolling

    Ironic how redbaiter calls me gay because I advocate marriage equality and you accuse me of misandry because I question your silly statements on feminism.

    Funny too about your comment about a muslim society, you with your views on feminism would actually find a lot of sympathy in such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    eszett is a rainbow warrior in the best school of the pink faction of the Labour Party. Way to go, comrade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. itstricky (1,689 comments) says:

    eszett is a rainbow warrior in the best school of the pink faction of the Labour Party. Way to go, comrade.

    LOL – With ezett’s reply and Manolo’s reaction, I just haaavveee to post this:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. HB (295 comments) says:

    AFAIK the Teachers Council has nothing to do with the unions so I am not sure why some commenters even brought this up?

    As I have said on here before many teachers are unhappy with the Teachers Council. Issues like this where teachers do not lose their registration and appear to be protected from media etc are not supported by the average teacher. We hate it when idiots like this PE teacher and the teacher who tried to hire a hit can continue to teach.

    The issue in the post for me is not the age of the victim (above age of consent) but that as a teacher you have a position of power and trust. This teacher betrayed this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. itstricky (1,689 comments) says:

    AFAIK the Teachers Council has nothing to do with the unions so I am not sure why some commenters even brought this up?

    Because the outspoken posters here believe anything with the word ‘Teachers’ in it works as such -: “Teachers” = “Slackers” = “Tax Payer Money Slackers” = “Union” = “Double Tax Payer Money Slackers” = “Commies” = Rainbow Land!

    The question in the post for me is why the law was put there in the first place, whether it effective, and if it isn’t, whether taking it out would make it more effective.

    They don’t just put these laws in for a laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. nasska (10,867 comments) says:

    itstricky

    So long as the various teachers’ unions present as venal cloth cap socialists then you can expect commenters on this & other centre right forums to keep bashing away. Probably the Teachers Council is not staffed by current fee paying union members but you can bet your chalk & duster that the majority will be failed ex teachers hugely sympathetic to “the cause”.

    I (& I suspect others) view anything that originates from teacher unions as utter bollocks…..this has far less to do with politics or ingrained bias than the sum of observations built up over the years. Only a complete simpleton would believe that the socialist posturing has its roots in pupils’ interests rather than that of the demagogues. When a professional body displays less balance than a meatworkers’ union it attracts the odium it richly deserves.

    And you are correct…..”they” don’t “put these laws in for a laugh”. The Labour government of the time would have passed the legislation as a payback for union support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. itstricky (1,689 comments) says:

    nasska,

    So long as the various teachers’ unions present as venal cloth cap socialists then…

    Sounds like a statement based in political ideology rather than any hard facts.

    I (& I suspect others) view anything that originates from teacher unions as utter bollocks…..this has far less to do with politics or ingrained bias than the sum of observations built up over the years.

    I guess you’re just a bit more cynical than I am. Again, likely to be the product of policitical ideology in your own mind but I must say I’m not sitting here reading publications and press releases from the Teacher’s Council every day. My eight hour day takes me a long way away from any of that but if you’ve the relevant experience to proclaim most of the stuff that originates is bollocks… then – on ya.

    The Labour government of the time would have passed the legislation as a payback for union support.

    Couldn’t disagree more. You saying that you choose to disbelieve the statement from Peter Lind in the article:

    …the reason for strict rules around publishing was because key witnesses were almost always children or young people who had been through a traumatic event. Anonymity was one way of assuring parents and innocent children they could come forward.

    because it was passed as a payback for union support? Seriously? What makes you think it wasn’t just for the simpler, more direct and humane reason that it might protect victims? What possible reason could a union have in having such a law passed? Do you have proof?

    If anyone has any real reasons/precedents as to why this was passed in 2004 I’d like to have a read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.