www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307201...ontrol-students.html

This poor man was targeted by POLICE and lost his job - because a 13 YEAR OLD GIRL did a simulated Sex Act in his lesson - he tried to tell her off - but she then counter accused him of violence towards her......

Of course nothing happened to the "criminal" and the "Innocent" teacher was SACKED.

After hearing the evidence the man has now been totally cleared of any wrong - doing.

What he has to say about our schools and how these kids are using the POLICE to start their criminal careers with the backing of the POLICE and SOCIAL SERVICES is a reminder to anyone who has not got a closed mind ( Like Jim sadly ) that the real situation out there is that FALSE ALLEGATIONS rule our schools and the POLICE are fanning the flames all the time with Social Services in tow.

They failed completely to protect BABY P remember - they ignored all the evidence - the Police did nothing and neither did Social Services : But when it comes to the harassment of an innocent teacher the Police and Social Services are all over it like a rash forcing teachers out of their jobs or worse taking them to court with no evidence.

I think Jim I have provided not just my own experience as proof of what I am saying - it is the generally held view within the teaching profession and the families of those who teach that the "False Allegations" business is totally out of control.

95% of complaints are false allegations and dont lead to a conviction against a teacher. Out of the 5% that do it is probably that less than 1% are actually true because the media has stacked the odds against teachers and if a jury does not contain an experienced teacher then they are likely to believe the "victim" above the accused unless they can provide compelling evidence. The other cases are probably where the teacher has been caught with his or her pants down and pleads guilty - but a really small percentage engage in illegal activities with pupils. The selection proceedure since the 70s has been really tough for a paedophile to slip through the vetting proceedures. A paedophile is very noticable - I have met paedophiles sadly and I know that those in teacher training at our best colleges have a sixth sense for weeding out the "unsuitables" from the teaching profession. They stick out like sore thumbs. Most teachers are very well meaning and driven by a desire to help kids - if they are in it for their own desires it is obvious I would have thought from day one. Some teachers like everyone else go through a mid life crisis - and occasionally a teacher in their 40s or 50s who has a marriage breakdown may take refuge in a 6th former etc. but that is extremely rare and is certainly not a paedophilic tendency .....which is basically the love of children sexually by definition - and it is extremely rare to find someone who has sex with under 12s in the teaching profession ? I cant think of any case of this I have read about for years ? Can anyone else ?

Thanks BR,

You quoted me correctly the second time, but not the first. There is an important difference between the two.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Thanks Plissken, you write:

"Quickly followed by yet another offer to enter into correspondence on behalf of someone else."

No. I was offering to correspond on my own behalf. I'm not sure what I said to cause the confusion.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
Thanks BR,

You quoted me correctly the second time, but not the first. There is an important difference between the two.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Sorry for being pedantic but when did missing out two words count as a phrase meaning something else ?

The quote means exactly the same even if I missed out the words then and should. For instance the Police dont always say UK in their comments. It is the general meaning behind the phrase which gives it the meaning.

I see you have not denied that you are in or work for the Police in your comments - though you were quick to correct the omission of the two words.

Perhaps you can enlighten us ? maybe the postings on here have drawn your attention

Anyhow thank you for pointing out the omission of two words - I will be more careful and cut and paste or learn to use the quote function in future

Thanks BR,

I think it would be a good idea in future to use copy and paste.

Obviously there is a difference between a "should" statement and an "is" statement. I cannot, in good conscience, waste any more time on someone who refuses to see it.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
Thanks Plissken, you write:

"Quickly followed by yet another offer to enter into correspondence on behalf of someone else."

No. I was offering to correspond on my own behalf. I'm not sure what I said to cause the confusion.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim, as Malcolm Tucker once famously said, 'Don't start with the fucking semantics shit again.
You know what I call "semantics"? Wank!'

Not involving any kidsex allegations, but another strange story involving a teacher, a non-crime & a mysterious "tip-off"

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/H...-detail/article.html

I believe BR is on to something and there needs to be a Royal Commission into all police actions and the very way we deal with the soul-destroying subject of child abuse which is rampant throughout Britain.

And by child abuse I mean the vast majority of which is by neglect, physical and mental abuse and the least form-sexual.

One shining example shows that the matter is treated with utter madness :

2 people who willfully and deliberately abandoned their 3 small children in a foreign land in an unlocked apartment so that one has met a fate so terrible that we cannot imagine...are lauded by the main child protection unit ( CEOPS) almost as parents of the year.

And the father is invited to speak to policing groups...a father who by all legal definitions, willfully neglected his children.

The system is bust...prove me wrong !