Indecent images teacher Geoffrey Bettley cleared to work again

If I had any I am pretty sure I would not want my kids taught by someone like this!

Surprised there hasn't been a thread on this to be honest, I'm sure had he been from a certain ethnic background we'd have had one though

 

"Child abuse images at a low level"?

What's that mean, and does it have a bearing?

 

He should never ever work with children again, my kids would never go to any school he worked at.

 

It means "non sexual" pictures of children

 

So what sort of abuse?

And is it that important?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPINE_scale

Level 1 Indicative Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.

 

At the end of the day the guy was placed on the sex offenders registers. Either that was wrong and he should appeal or he should never be allowed to teach again!

 

Agree f1, ideal candidate to turn into a nonce, but the British public are allowing him to carry on as usual? We as a community shouldn't allow it.

Deport the ****** I say

 

If you wait 2 years Sti Addict will resurrect the story.

I wouldn't be happy if he was anywhere near kids either FWIW. Who in their right mind would take a risk with this person in future?

 

No way should he be allowed to teach kids again

 

 

No way would I want him teaching my kids..

 

He's being allowed to apply for teaching jobs. No guarantee anyone will employ him!

 

Well according to your comments in other threads it would be ok at night time in the dark and if the kids are white trash from broken homes.

 

Time to get the pitchforks and flaming torches ready!

 

could be worse, you could send them to church.

it seems 99% of vicars are sexual deviants.

 

EFA

 

Some do-gooder will give him a job!

 

Back tracking now, the lady is for turning

 

Look, in all seriousness for a minute, you are the only one that chose to interpret it that way which says a lot more about you than it does about me. I know how I meant it, everyone else got it, just you interpreted it differently. I can only guess why!

 

I think you are Leslie Chow from the Hangover in disguise.

 

I would like to think that every teacher, head teacher, governor and any parent who sits on the school board will be well aware of this chap and his story and he'll never get anywhere near another school.

 

 

You don't want to know what I think you are!

 

"Level 1 Indicative Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness."

Hang on, am I reading this correctly? Can't follow up the links - don't think it'd look good on my work history!! lol

So, strictly speaking, you could be put on the sex offenders list for lets say:

Having a picture of your dog playing in the fountain of a local park because it also contained a kid playing in said fountain in their swimsuit/underwear

Or

Having some old clips of 80s classic "We are the champions" on some video tapes in your loft???

Joking aside, that sounds a bit bit sinister!!!

 

Why would he have pictures of kids in underwear/swimwear though ? 200 of them I think. If it was for a legitimate reason (cant think of one , maybe sports day or school trips)could he not have easily just said "look , these are from the school trip and are on display at the school" or whatever ? I have worked in loads of schools and nurseries and there are loads of pics on display , some even on a loop on a TV of the school trips etc , none of which are of kids in underwear. If say , he was the teacher who always took the kids on school trips and maybe they happen to be in swimwear , and maybe he kept them on a file on his PC , he might be innocent . But it doesnt look good either way . Even the fact the question was asked would probably loose you your job.

Its scary when you imagine if you take your kids on a summer holiday every year and take pics of them in the kids pool with other random kids (in the background) , how many pics of kids in swimwear would you have on your PC after 10 years ! In fact , how many times have you seen some random naked kid running around poolside or at the beach , imagine if they were unknowingly captured in an innocent pic and you had never paid any attention to it , until cops are sifting through your PC !

Thats kids in swimwear and naked ! Good luck persuading people you arent a peado if that got printed in the papers !

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending this particular individual - I don't know the circumstances.

It just makes me a bit uncomfortable that people are out with burning torches and pitchforks with chants of burn the kiddie fiddler, then when one examines the characterization of the material he was prosecuted for (?) it seems like something ostensibly that, as you point out, many decent people might quite legitimately have!

Problem with discussion on this topic is good sense and reason is so often replaced by hysteria and paranoia .... and we really don't want legislation based on the latter that might irrevocably ruin the reputation of people for little more than the fact that their holiday snaps include a picture of a kid playing on the beach!!

There is an old saying: throw enough s*it and it stinks/sticks. You have to throw very little sh*t with respect to this subject before it stinks/sticks!!

 

 

and yet looking at a 18 year old girl, with (on purpose) the body of a 16 year old, get fvcked simultaneously by five 60 year old men

is perfectly legal

it is acceptable?

would you want your daughter being taught by men who watched that

 

Couldn't agree more. While I have no problem with **** per se I do find the whole teen/schoolgirl/young girl genre quite worrying to be honest and (rightly or wrongly) I would be wary of anyone who was into that sort of thing especially if I had kids.