The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => Saloon Bar => Topic started by: Grumpmeister on May 15, 2007, 05:57:28 PM
-
How the hell does a school end up with a situation like this?
A convicted paedophile is living in the grounds of a primary school despite a court battle to evict him.
Timothy Martin, 34, was found guilty at St Albans Crown Court last week of sexual activity with a child.
A judge refused an eviction bid in December saying Martin had a tenancy agreement and had not been convicted.
Martin is on bail awaiting sentencing - an appeal against the failed eviction bid will be heard on 25 May.
Martin moved into the school cottage last July when he was offered the job of caretaker at Beechfield School in Watford, north London.
Police checks by the school then revealed the investigation against him.
Am I missing something here, surely the checks have to be made before you are allowed to start working and living at a school. Or is that just too much common sense to be applicable.
The council started eviction proceedings against Martin as soon as he was charged last September - the proceedings were heard at Watford County Court in early December.
But the judge refused to force Martin out even though he had not signed a tenancy agreement.
The judge said under the law he had an assured short term tenancy agreement and was allowed to remain.
Ok if the law protects him on that front I'm pretty sure that you would have been able to give him an asbo preventing him from coming within say 100 metres of the school grounds, That would protect the children there without breaking the tenancy laws.
The council then tried to get the Crown Court judge presiding over Martin's criminal case to alter his bail conditions to say he could not live on the school grounds but he also refused.
Parents were not told of Martin's background until after his conviction when they received a letter from the head teacher, who until then was legally bound not to inform them.
A spokesman for Hertfordshire County Council said: "We are appalled by this situation."
Measures were taken by the school to prevent Martin gaining access to its buildings, with security doors being kept locked and the head teacher monitoring children as they left the grounds.
An appeal was immediately lodged against the county court's decision but this is not due to be heard until 25 May.
The system has become a joke if the rights if a kiddy fiddler are more important than the rights of children to be in a safe environment.
-
I agree with you ? eviction is not the answer in this case.
Worry about eviction later, sort it out in good time, and don?t worry about the eviction hearing being delayed ?til the 25th May.
But get him out of there NOW! Exclude him in some other way, I can?t remember what they call it now but make sure he can?t get within 500m of the school ? it?s a ludicrous situation.
I don?t know the full facts but on the surface it appears that the authorities have been somewhat blinkered in their attempt to have him evicted as their primary solution.
-
Its a restraining order or an injunction I think. All its going to take for the council to pull their finger out over this is for the parents to refuse to take ther children into school until he is booted out, add in some more media coverage and watch how fast they come up with an alternative solution.
-
I don't agree.
The error was in granting the job and tenancy before checking the record.
That was inexcusable and it has granted rights to the Paedo that he should not have had.
But he has them! And so it is up to the authorities to contain the situation until it can be resolved using the proper legal process that is necessary to safeguard a democracy.
You can't have a situation where rights can be erased simply because they are inconvenient.
It that were the case they would not be rights.
-
I agree with you, whoever gave him the cottage without a tanancy agreement before the police checks had been completed should be immediately sacked if they havent already fallen on their sword.
The law is on his side as far as an viction goes that much is true, but an injunction can be granted on the grounds of child safety banning him from coming within a certain distance of the school grounds. By going down that route you arent breaking any laws but are ensuring the safety of the children at that school.
-
I don't understand how he was given the job without his CRB check having gone through. We were told that all employment by the school, including admin/caretakers etc was coniditional on you passing your CRB. I just don't see how the system could have failed on this point.
-
I don't understand how he was given the job without his CRB check having gone through. We were told that all employment by the school, including admin/caretakers etc was coniditional on you passing your CRB. I just don't see how the system could have failed on this point.
All such systems fail because they are administered by humans. The probably looked at him an thought as he is obviously such a nice chap they wouldn't bother with the formalities. Consider how many paedos have ended up in child related jobs, they are always very nice people, obviously! Children would not be attracted to them if they were not. We are too mature to realise that though!
Fortunately, we have the compulsory police checks. They are embarrassing to apply but do the job that others don't seem capable of.
Finally, an injunction granted to prohibit the return of a tenant to his legal home would be perverse and would be overturned immediately. It would be more effective to assign a bodyguard to him (for his own protection) to make sure he stayed away from children until justice has run its course. The person who made the decision to admit him prematurely could foot the bill for that!
-
The whole thing is a mystery to me. After seeing how this part of the system works and the double checking etc involved I don't see how it could happen. Serious user error.
-
Finally, an injunction granted to prohibit the return of a tenant to his legal home would be perverse and would be overturned immediately.
No, I disagree ? the injunction would be to keep him away from the school and protect the children ? it would be purely coincidental that that also precluded him from visiting his home.
When a woman gets an injunction preventing her violent husband from bating her half-to-death (again) it isn?t immediately overturned because it would prevent him from returning to the matrimonial home?
-
Plus I remember hearing in the news on more than one occaision of ASBO's being issued against people that prevented them from entering their own homes so there is already a precendence.
-
a precendence.
Angry9:
-
Just keeping you on your toes Darwin old boy, I know how much you love to pick people up on spelling and grammar eyes:
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to get into a fight over this.
An ASBO is an informal conviction for an offence or series of offences that has occurred warranting action to prevent it from happening again. The key word here is 'again'.
Now, as I understand it, the paedo was convicted for offences committed elsewhere and in the past. Presumably he has been punished for that and is now a free person.
The school has a policy of not employing people with convictions for sex related offences.
The actions people are trying to apply is to remove the possibility of him offending again and I don't have a problem with that per se but unless he has been observed offending in the vicinity of his home, then a ASBO cannot be applied.
If he is convicted of such offences then he may be imprisoned or an injunction granted to keep him away from the school and his home.
Matrimonial orders are only possible because the petitioner's home is the same place and a court is convinced that continued co-inhabiting would likely result in danger to the other person who also lives there.
In the case of the school caretaker, no such conflict is involved, the policy of the school is not a matter of culpability to the tenant. In fact, unless anyone has evidence to the contrary he is blameless in this issue.
The school caused the problem to exist and it is the schools responsibility to resolve it. I imaging the tenancy of the cottage is conditional on employment as a caretaker so a dismissal from the job will trigger the legal eviction of the ex-caretaker. But that is the only legal resolution to a problem that was caused wholly by the school.
I hope it will act as a wake-up stab to school administrators all over, to shape up to their responsibilities and do their jobs by the book and not through the back door.
-
Right, I've looked deeper into this issue and can see that is is really historical, At the time of the application to the court there was no conviction, and my earlier comments apply.
However, he is now convicted and it is a matter of waiting for the next hearing on the 25th which will resolve the issue.
As there is now a conviction it would be in order to apply for an injunction forbidding him access until sentence is passed.
-
Additionally you would have to wonder why he would risk continuing to live there. scared2:
-
My guess is that he is trying to bluff out the hearing. After all if he moves out beforehand it does send a message to the court before it even begins. However if he stays there protesting his innocence then he can hope for that little sliver of doubt.
-
It is also the case that the CRB checks have to be completed within 13 weeks of the person taking up the job.
They slipped that one in when they realised that there are occasions when an employer needs the employee and the CRB were so far behind doing the checks that people could not fill vacancies in time to fulfill the contracts they had. EG Security Personnel ~ which was my field at one time, are often needed at short notice and making applicants wait up to 13 weeks for clearance was a nonsense. Cock-eyed system in the first place made worse by committee and then the employment of Capita to run it.
And before anyone argues with me I am registered with the CRB to obtain checks on people so YES I do know the rules and the actuality.
-
Additionally you would have to wonder why he would risk continuing to live there. scared2:
I think you have hit the nail right on the head with that question. WHY?
I am beginning to believe that the compulsion to do things overwhelm some people to the extent where not only does the safely of others not bother them, but their own safety seems not to matter either.
Why would a person seek a job when they know their sordid past will catch up with them and they will again become a target for hatred and constant threat of physical harm by people that also cannot control themselves?
To a person of this kind, I think that control of the kind a civilised nation can exert, is completely futile, they will offend again and again, whenever an opportunity is available, regardless of the consequences!
This level of compulsion is base, and nothing will halt it. It is akin to asking a person to stop breathing.
I am not singling out paedophiles for these observations as it manifests itself in many different ways according to the person. Other equal morbid obsessions are less evident as the compulsive acts are often legal. Take eating as an example, or adulterous behaviour as another.
I believe that paedophiles should be reclassified from criminals to Compulsive Obsessive Disorder sufferers and treated accordingly for an assumed lifelong condition, where there is no hope of improvement without active intervention with drugs or surgery or whatever means can be shown to work. If nothing can be shown to work then the only answer is segregation or isolation.
In any event, we need to recognise that the current legal application is achieving absolutely nothing in the way of punishment or prevention. There is little point in punishing a person who apparently can not help but do what his instincts tell him to, the only answer is to remove him from the temptation to err.