the news has been full iin the last week abotu those teachers on list 99 (and the sex offender register) being emploed to work in schools.

well what do you think- should it be a complete ban or are there exceptions to the rules?
is the education minister in deep water over this one!?

I think she is a complete idiot, and proof that Blair perfers to promote incompetant people to ministerial level so he doesn't face a leadership challenge.

This row is proof of how quickly we have forgotten what happened at Soham. Ian Huntly managed to get a job as a school caretaker despite being a known sex offender, and as a result two innocent children were murdered.

There is simply no circuimstance in which these people should be allowed to work in a school despite what Ruth Kelly thinks.

Not so long ago, homosexuals were regarded as deviant and they could face a prison sentence for their actions. A great deal of effort went into working out why some people were homosexual (we still don't know for sure) and how they could be reformed. Today we know that the notion of reforming homosexuals to be absurd and most people in Britain now accept that there is nothing wrong with a relationship that is both adult and consenting.

I regard the idea of reforming child abusers as being just as absurd. They will remain a danger to children for as long as they live, so they must be kept away from children.

As a side note, one of the teachers who was named in this row is being allowed back to work, a story that the Daily Mail has covered here. If I was a parent of one of the children at that school, I would be keeping my child at home until I can find another school and suing both the Department of Education and the agency that employs the teacher for such criminal incompetance.

You are now assuming that parents have a shared IQ to rub together. From what I can see most parents don't give a toss for if they did there would already be heads on spikes at Downing Street.

I somehow can't see the schools in concern sending letters out informing parents that they employ sex offenders. Most parents wouldn't be in any position to know.

The the problem I have is with the list itself and who get's put on it. It covers everyone from the people who have committed serious offences like sexualy assaulting young childeren right the way up to having a piture of a naked 16 1/2 yr old on your PC. The fact that the 16 1/2 yr old may look like an adult means nothing.

There's also the fact that viruses and trojan horses that infect a PC could download unsutable images from the internet. There are trojan horses out there that download other files from the net so it wouldn't take a genious to modify one to download something else.

Then unless you can proove in court that it wasn't you that downloaded the images but the virus, which could be a very difficult thing to do, you get put on the list. I beleve at one point they were discussing the idea that the person should stay on the list even if they manage to overturn the guilty verdict during appeal.

Like many things this government does the whole list idea was never thought out properly which has lead to this current row about people on the list working in schools.

By the way, which country are we talking about here? Going by that article, I'd guess UK?

We're discussing the recent hooha in the UK over someone who had a police caution for apparently having kiddie porn on their puter.

If someone is going to be listed in this way then they should have been taken to court and found guilty beforehand.

The Chiefs of Police are now tlaking about trashing the rehabilitation of Offenders Act which is a potential nightmare for anyone who has been done for any kind of offence. It will cause a lot of problems for those looking for work or chnging jobs. Example 16 year old is done for shoplifting - 20 years later the 36 yr applies for a job in the gaming indiustry and is rejected because of what was once a spent conviction.

a few points-

good luck finding another school! - schools are so full that the chances of walkign your kid into another one are near on imporssible!

if someone is tried in court and found guilty and THEN removed from teaching in a school i would see this as negligance. they should be suspended untill proved guilty OR innocent. yes this would point the finger- but we are talkign abtou keeping innocent, vunrable children sae in an instituation most of them have very little choice abotu goign to. on returnign to school having been equitted the programe for resumming work in full would have to be carefully managed and handled to ensure that support was given. THIS woudl take time, and money- alwasys these thing are in the way of education doign its absolute best for the chidlren in its care.

i have NO problem with a shoplifter getting a job in a shop 20 years later. as personaly i feel this is a different standard of crime we are looking at. Anyone on the sex offenders register should be banned PERIMANTLY from workgin in schools, as was mentioned before, it is widly accepted that sexual preferences are not concious decisions* but built into the "wiering" of an individual- therefore cann not be changed. untill such a time as this is PROVED to be different we have a right to protect children in schools.

*i am not arguing abotu the choice to ACT on sexual preferences, as the choice to act IS a concious decision.

I think that if the ban isnt made cmpletly inclusive of ALL listed on the sex offender register (and list 99) then education departments up and down the country are going to see kids pulled outta schools so fast itll make their heads spin. and this is a shame, as children have a RIGHT to an education in this country.