Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Paedophiles: Why not Become a Teacher? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Buxom:

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Is it just me, or is the image on the homepage advert entreating folk to become teachers only going to attract paedophiles to the profession? I know that nothing can be sold in this world of ours without a buxom teenage girl wearing a seductively unbuttoned shirt, but come on, you could have chosen a more representative picture of school-life than that bloody little Lolita. Grump, grump, grump.

    Firstly that's the teacher, but she could be a 6th form student for all we know.

    Secondly, some paedophiles do become teachers. There was one found in a primary school close to where I live.

    Thirdly, at least based on the teachers at my old school, some of the teachers found certain 6th formers quite attractive and were quite open about it!

    Obviously the latter example doesn't make him a paedo, but it's still illegal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Urgh, jokes aside I actually read the other day that lawyers have been saying banning sex offenders from working with children is "against their human rights" o.0 Some people need to sort their priorities out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Been there, done that, smelt the tuna.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)

    This is how my brain interpreted the picture.

    The girl in the back with her hand up looks like shes on a slightly exciting roller-coaster ride and was cut and pasted into this pic.
    The woman in the middle looks like your average Brit walking down the street having a laugh with a couple of mates, who was also cut and pasted into this picture.
    The woman to the left looks like Dannii Minogue, from the side. Also cut and pasted.
    :rolleyes:Great minds think...this way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    Urgh, jokes aside I actually read the other day that lawyers have been saying banning sex offenders from working with children is "against their human rights" o.0 Some people need to sort their priorities out.
    *If* the law implies that it is against their human rights, then the lawyers are only stating what they perceive as fact and a loophole in the law. I highly doubt they're giving their own view of whether paedo's should work with children. In any case, I can't see how such a statement does a lawyer any good, and why he'd want to defend a paedo in court over this issue. Quite bizarre.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Thirdly, at least based on the teachers at my old school, some of the teachers found certain 6th formers quite attractive and were quite open about it!

    Obviously the latter example doesn't make him a paedo, but it's still illegal.
    Actually you are a paedophile/ephebophile if you are attracted the them, you don't have to sexually assault them or anything.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CatatonicStupor)
    I was under the impression she was the teacher. If this is true: tap away, good buddy. Tap away!
    Hopefully you mean on the condition of consent:P .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nashy19)
    Actually you are a paedophile/ephebophile if you are attracted the them, you don't have to sexually assault them or anything.
    I wasn't denying that, but my point was the girls in Q were all 17/18, so it didn't make the teachers a paedophile for finding some of them attractive. I guess they were just being honest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's fairly obvious she's the teacher, maybe like a student teacher on work experience, as this is a student website that would make sense. The picture is trying to make it look like she's having an awesome time see.
    And there's no cleavage on show, the jumper is fairly loose, what the hell would be the problem even if she was a student?
    It's a scientific fact that people are more likely to be attracted to good-looking people. And by attracted I don't just mean sexually, I mean in terms of wanting to spend time with them, speak to them, teach them, etc. Virtually all advertising uses attractive people for this reason, not because they're trying to play on people's sexuality.

    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    That girl is the teacher.

    And the girl at the back looks WAAYY too over-enthusiastic about asking a question.
    I know what you mean! I think she may be wanting some help removing that large head shaped, blond-haired gawping growth that has become attached to her armpit... I can't think of anything else that would make her act so urgently and with such a sanity-questioning focus.... I mean look at her arm! She has got it so vertical that she seems to have broken her wrist... and she has the facial expression of someone who's just recently discovered they have worms.

    Don't even get me started on the teacher, who seems really pleased about the fact that the top row of her teeth have decided to escape from her mouth...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    *If* the law implies that it is against their human rights, then the lawyers are only stating what they perceive as fact and a loophole in the law. I highly doubt they're giving their own view of whether paedo's should work with children. In any case, I can't see how such a statement does a lawyer any good, and why he'd want to defend a paedo in court over this issue. Quite bizarre.
    Sex offenders isn't limited to paedophiles, it includes rape and sexual assault of adults. Anyway, they say that a blanket ban is discriminatory and each case should be considered individually.

    Article- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/n...ption-children
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's the teacher...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    EDIT: And on the "buxom"/"seductive" point, maybe I'm just chronically undersexed -- dig six feet down, and my grandmother's decaying body could probably excite my interest at this point in time. :rolleyes:
    .... I presume a zombie apocalypse would leave you in complete ecstasy then?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    Sex offenders isn't limited to paedophiles, it includes rape and sexual assault of adults. Anyway, they say that a blanket ban is discriminatory and each case should be considered individually.

    Article- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/n...ption-children
    Thanks for the link.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    Sex offenders isn't limited to paedophiles, it includes rape and sexual assault of adults. Anyway, they say that a blanket ban is discriminatory and each case should be considered individually.

    Article- http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/n...ption-children
    I have to say, satanic though it makes me, that I rather agree with this chap. If we're going to have a society that believes in the possibility of rehabilitation, we should allow for the possibility of complete rehabilitation, else we're giving out mixed messages. If an ex-offender never encounters children in "everyday" settings upon release from prison, then I suspect that that is perhaps more likely to make them relate to kids only in deviant ways, as they haven't had the exposure to more normal relationships. Of course, it's a sensitive issue, and that's not to say that all ex-offenders should be given this chance. In practice, even with a change in the law very, very few would be employed anyway -- as they'd have to disclose the criminal conviction to the potential employer who almost definitely wouldn't employ them, or at least would keep a closer eye on them. And even with this system, I presume that all ex-convicts could still be banned from doing such work: it would simply be that their cases would have been reviewed on an individual basis, rather than there having been a blanket ban, as now, which disregards individual circumstances. It does go counter to our fundamental instincts, but the report says that "that cohabiting couples can present more of a risk to children than sex offenders", and it's surely better to go with the evidence than kneejerk reaction, however sensitive the issue. :dontknow:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Is it just me, or is the image on the homepage advert entreating folk to become teachers only going to attract paedophiles to the profession? I know that nothing can be sold in this world of ours without a buxom teenage girl wearing a seductively unbuttoned shirt, but come on, you could have chosen a more representative picture of school-life than that bloody little Lolita. Grump, grump, grump.

    Pupil or teacher. I want to make her love brutally. Monkey dirty sex.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    I have to say, satanic though it makes me, that I rather agree with this chap. If we're going to have a society that believes in the possibility of rehabilitation, we should allow for the possibility of complete rehabilitation, else we're giving out mixed messages. If an ex-offender never encounters children in "everyday" settings upon release from prison, then I suspect that that is perhaps more likely to make them relate to kids only in deviant ways, as they haven't had the exposure to more normal relationships. Of course, it's a sensitive issue, and that's not to say that all ex-offenders should be given this chance. In practice, even with a change in the law very, very few would be employed anyway -- as they'd have to disclose the criminal conviction to the potential employer who almost definitely wouldn't employ them, or at least would keep a closer eye on them. And even with this system, I presume that all ex-convicts could still be banned from doing such work: it would simply be that their cases would have been reviewed on an individual basis, rather than there having been a blanket ban, as now, which disregards individual circumstances. It does go counter to our fundamental instincts, but the report says that "that cohabiting couples can present more of a risk to children than sex offenders", and it's surely better to go with the evidence than kneejerk reaction, however sensitive the issue. :dontknow:
    As committed to rehabilitation as we may (or may not) be, with such high stakes involved it's surely something that should involve the maximum amount of precaution possible. It sounds really glib to say it, but "better safe than sorry" really does apply. We should also consider how effective our system of rehabilitation is- a study in the 90s followed sex offenders and found that 25% were reconvicted of an offence, 15% for sexual offences. Perhaps when a much bigger majority of sex offenders are properly rehabilitated this could be considered, however even then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who have a position of responsibility and care towards others to have an unblemished record in this respect. I do agree however, that in practice it probably wouldn't make a large amount of difference.

    I would also love to know on what basis they worked out that co-habiting couples (I assume they mean as opposed to married couples, rather than just couples in general?) can be more of a risk than sex offenders. :lolwut: What constitutes risk? What about single parents? Is a co-haviting sex offender the worst possible parent ever?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    As committed to rehabilitation as we may (or may not) be, with such high stakes involved it's surely something that should involve the maximum amount of precaution possible. It sounds really glib to say it, but "better safe than sorry" really does apply. We should also consider how effective our system of rehabilitation is- a study in the 90s followed sex offenders and found that 25% were reconvicted of an offence, 15% for sexual offences. Perhaps when a much bigger majority of sex offenders are properly rehabilitated this could be considered, however even then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who have a position of responsibility and care towards others to have an unblemished record in this respect. I do agree however, that in practice it probably wouldn't make a large amount of difference.

    I would also love to know on what basis they worked out that co-habiting couples (I assume they mean as opposed to married couples, rather than just couples in general?) can be more of a risk than sex offenders. :lolwut: What constitutes risk? What about single parents? Is a co-haviting sex offender the worst possible parent ever?
    Hmm, I can see both sides of the argument and there are very strong arguments on both sides -- no solution would be perfect -- but instinctively I lean towards the more liberal option. After all, (to give an extreme/slippery slope argument) "better safe than sorry" could be lent to an argument for incarcerating any males aged between 20 and 40 who act "oddly", but not sexually, with children [which would surely be unjustified]: that would undoubtedly increase the safety of our youngsters since some of these men would surely have gone on to commit sex offences, had they not been detained. Sad to say, naught but the most authoritarian of law could significantly reduce the number of sex crimes against children.

    I agree that rehabilitation rates always need to be bettered, but if 85% of ex-offenders, on your figures, never commit another sex crime, that must be quite encouraging (especially considering that the rate of recidivism amongst ex-offenders generally is much higher) and surely at least some of them could work with children successfully: I'd imagine that it's not necessarily impossible to differentiate between those who are very likely to reoffend and those who aren't. And, as we agree, they'd never in practice be treated as lightly as normal citizens by those around them anyway: the stigma of having committed a sex crime in the past is too great.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Hmm, I can see both sides of the argument and there are very strong arguments on both sides -- no solution would be perfect -- but instinctively I lean towards the more liberal option. After all, (to give an extreme/slippery slope argument) "better safe than sorry" could be lent to an argument for incarcerating any males aged between 20 and 40 who act "oddly", but not sexually, with children [which would surely be unjustified]: that would undoubtedly increase the safety of our youngsters since some of these men would surely have gone on to commit sex offences, had they not been detained. Sad to say, naught but the most authoritarian of law could significantly reduce the number of sex crimes against children.

    I agree that rehabilitation rates always need to be bettered, but if 85% of ex-offenders, on your figures, never commit another sex crime, that must be quite encouraging (especially considering that the rate of recidivism amongst ex-offenders generally is much higher) and surely at least some of them could work with children successfully: I'd imagine that it's not necessarily impossible to differentiate between those who are very likely to reoffend and those who aren't. And, as we agree, they'd never in practice be treated as lightly as normal citizens by those around them anyway: the stigma of having committed a sex crime in the past is too great.
    You're right, it is difficult to balance the desire to protect children whilst also letting people retain their freedom. It's possible to take your argument the other way too and say that once a person has been rehabilitated, their criminal record is in the past and should not be released to people in case they are discriminated against. In fact, if we are to fully support rehabilitation, even people who have been convicted specifically of paedophilia should not be prevented from working with children. The reason we don't arrest men who act peculiarly is that there is no evidence against them, however these people have been proven guilty and convicted and whilst they become thoroughly upstanding citizens in time, you can't simply erase the past and assume that because they say they're sorry, they really are.

    If you can differentiate between those that are likely to reoffend and those that aren't, surely we wouldn't keep releasing those that are likely to offend (this goes for other criminals too)? I'm sure that some of them would never dream of hurting a child but it's simply not that easy to distinguish between those that would and those that wouldn't. In my mind, once you've severely harmed another human being, you can't expect for all of your "rights" to stay intact. It's not dissimilar to those who abuse animals being banned from owning them- you've shown you cannot be trusted within that area of society.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.