Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

THE convicted sex offender sacked from a Bournemouth school at the weekend insisted today: "I am not a risk to children."

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Echo, William Gibson declared: "I am not a paedophile. I am frightened and I just want the chance to put my side of the story."

Mr Gibson, 59, lost his job as a supply teacher at Portchester School on Saturday morning when education officials realised who he was.

He had already been ordered to leave three schools in the North East since 2003 because of a conviction for sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl, with whom he said he forged a genuine and amicable relationship, in 1980.

Last night Mr Gibson agreed to talk exclusively to the Daily Echo to explain the background to his conviction and to apologise to the staff, parents and pupils at Portchester for the school being dragged into the national controversy.

Describing himself as "frightened and dazed" and fearing for his safety he also revealed the Department for Education had cleared him to work in schools in January, 2005. Today it was announced ministers are to lose the power to decide these cases.

Chairman of governors Keith Mitchell said: "The school acted within hours and Mr Gibson will not be returning. Portchester is an excellent school with excellent teachers and I don't want anything to detract from that."

Mr Gibson was at the school intermittently last term and full time this term. Head teacher at Chris Brady said: "All I can say is that all appropriate steps started being taken on Friday."

Mr Gibson's name does not appear on the sex offenders register, nor on the Department of Education's List 99, which contains the names of those banned for life from working with children. A full inquiry into procedures has been ordered by Bournemouth council.

He ended up marrying her and they have three children!

I agree with you..that'S unfair.

This is certainly a borderline case indeed. He certainly did not deserve to have his reputation ruined- whatever the ins and outs of the case, the Government actively told him that it was ok for him to work in schools. He wasn't trying to circumvent the law and there is no evidence that he would have tried to if he had been barred.

Other than his original offence- which was considered so trivial that he only received a caution, nothing approaching a conviction- he's done nothing illegal since then.

Now, there may be an argument that he SHOULD have been barred (and I would be interested to know if he was teaching this girl at the time, because that's a different matter). But regardless, he thought he was in the clear, and he does not deserve the reputation he now has- i.e. unable to find a job anywhere and having to live with police-assisted protection due to the possibility of vigilante attacks.

If there is anything at fault it's the system, yet he is paying the bigger price.

Heck, he came to his interview with a piece of paper written by the Education Ministry actually and plainly saying "This man is no threat to children." He couldn't have tried to be any more legit than he was.

I feel for the chap.


But then again, would you want him working there if your kid went to the school?

Well, that's a separate argument, But my point still is that the Government told him "Don't worry, this doesn't affect your career, you can still work in a school because we do not think you are a threat, and we will provide specific references you can produce at interview saying that we have confidence in you."

And he has been damned now because he followed through with that. I mean, ban them or don't ban them, but don't let them be treated like this, yeah?

Originally posted by mechmoggy
I feel for the chap.


But then again, would you want him working there if your kid went to the school?

Since I don't have children I can't say for sure. But he was 34 back then and the girl was 15, it was mutual (well that's what was implied) so I guess I'd say I don't fear too much that he would do anything bad.

Agreed, he was shafted by the system.


And to be fair to him, it sounds like he's not a perv.

Well, that's that topic put to bed.


Why can't we get a consensus with other threads as quickly as this?

Originally posted by mechmoggy
Well, that's that topic put to bed.


Why can't we get a consensus with other threads as quickly as this?

Hmm...that is a good question for another topic I think. Then again I think up to now only the more ...well...liberal peopl have responded.

My 8th grade teacher was taken to jail for sexual molestation on a girl. Who it is I dont know.
And that actually was my FAVORITE teacher.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
My 8th grade teacher was taken to jail for sexual molestation on a girl. Who it is I dont know.
And that actually was my FAVORITE teacher.

no comment

Originally posted by PVS
no comment
?

!

I don't get it either....anyways this is the GDF....stop OTing it.

how can anyone offer a real opinion with no fact to back it up?

"conviction for sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl, with whom he said he forged a genuine and amicable relationship, in 1980."

oh well ill just trust his word, since thats all we have to go by.

there's nothing here

Originally posted by PVS
how can anyone offer a real opinion with no fact to back it up?

"conviction for sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl, with whom he said he forged a genuine and amicable relationship, in 1980."

oh well ill just trust his word, since thats all we have to go by.

there's nothing here
Well the sentence he got is implying that it was only a minor offence.

Originally posted by PVS
how can anyone offer a real opinion with no fact to back it up?

"conviction for sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl, with whom he said he forged a genuine and amicable relationship, in 1980."

oh well ill just trust his word, since thats all we have to go by.

there's nothing here

He married her and they have 3 kids PVS its on the TV news here.

what if it was a mild sentence for a more serious crime?

we dont know the circumstance.
what if he just kissed her and they blew it out of proportion?
what if he locked her in a room against her will, tied her down and gave her a cleveland steamer? we dont know to what degree he deserved or didnt deserve his sentence since its all just a from the bias point of view of the one convicted.

i mean, i agree with ush that the state should have been clear as to what the penalties were and the school should have abided, but what does that have to do with whether or not this guy is a "pervert"?

Originally posted by PVS
what if it was a mild sentence for a more serious crime?

we dont know the circumstance.
what if he just kissed her and they blew it out of proportion?
what if he locked her in a room against her will, tied her down and gave her a cleveland steamer? we dont know to what degree he deserved or didnt deserve his sentence since its all just a from the bias point of view of the one convicted.

i mean, i agree with ush that the state should have been clear as to what the penalties were and the school should have abided, but what does that have to do with whether or not this guy is a "pervert"?

He married her.

I don't really know what you mean. If he seriously loved her and only her and is not in ayny other wway damaged I'd say it has everythign to do with him NOT being a pervert.

i didnt catch that last line. wow thats odd

Originally posted by PVS
i didnt catch that last line. wow thats odd

No probs.

Originally posted by PVS
i didnt catch that last line. wow thats odd
Me neither...he edited after I read it. But I assumed it was at least a real relationship not a "rape" kind of thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Me neither...he edited after I read it. But I assumed it was at least a real relationship not a "rape" kind of thing.

I did he married her it's on the TV news here, I felt it needed to be added I expect PVS did the same as you. Sorry guys!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I did he married her it's on the TV news here, I felt it needed to be added I expect PVS did the same as you. Sorry guys!
No problem. Suits my arguement.

Wow, I'm actually torn on this topic. I'm not sure if I need to say that the guy is a danger to children, and deserves what he got, or if he needs to be given a break.

I guess my opinion on this is that he did get into a relationship with an underage person. I don't know if that should be accepted and forgiven, despite him marrying her or not.

Maybe someone should address why he got into a relationship with an underage person, despite the outcome.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Wow, I'm actually torn on this topic. I'm not sure if I need to say that the guy is a danger to children, and deserves what he got, or if he needs to be given a break.

I guess my opinion on this is that he did get into a relationship with an underage person. I don't know if that should be accepted and forgiven, despite him marrying her or not.

Maybe someone should address why he got into a relationship with an underage person, despite the outcome.

Well it seems to have been in love since they married...it was mutual...she was already 15...don't see the big problem actually.

I believe you can't control who you fall in Love with, but Bardock, you don't believe in Love like me

Well, what I'm saying is this: Did he get involved with her because she was 15 and it was that fact that drew hi to her, or was it because of her? Granted, that's a question that only the man himself can answer. But, it would be the deciding factor in my opinion of the situation. But, I'm just one person, and if the consensus of the parents in his situation are okay with him being around their kids, then I guess it's okay. Not to sound arrogant.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I believe you can't control who you fall in Love with, but Bardock, you don't believe in Love like me

I don't know in what yu believe so well...but indeed you can not really control it in my opinion either...maybe slightly.

Can I just remind people that this person has never been convicted of any crime?

He received a caution.

If he had been actually convicted of a sexual offence, it is much less likely that the Government would have actively promoted to schools that he was no threat to kids.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Can I just remind people that this person has never been convicted of any crime?

He received a caution.

Yup!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Can I just remind people that this person has never been convicted of any crime?

He received a caution.

Thanks for reminding..but I don't think it's the point of the thread actually.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not to sound arrogant.

CF never!

PVS said earlier that we don't know if he received a mild sentence for a more serious crime.

I am reminding people that it is absolutely definite that nothing in the area of 'serious crime' has ever been proven against him, and as we all know, he's innocent until something proves otherwise.

You do not get cautions for serious offences.

my bad...."legal action"

there's no such thing as cautions here. you are found guilty of a crime or you walk and your record is clean

Originally posted by Ushgarak
PVS said earlier that we don't know if he received a mild sentence for a more serious crime.

I am reminding people that it is absolutely definite that nothing in the area of 'serious crime' has ever been proven against him, and as we all know, he's innocent until something proves otherwise.

You do not get cautions for serious offences.

Yes, that'S true.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, what I'm saying is this: Did he get involved with her because she was 15 and it was that fact that drew hi to her, or was it because of her? Granted, that's a question that only the man himself can answer. But, it would be the deciding factor in my opinion of the situation. But, I'm just one person, and if the consensus of the parents in his situation are okay with him being around their kids, then I guess it's okay. Not to sound arrogant.

Well to stay with her for around 26 years afterwards (And I am pretty much sure that she wasn't fifteen for at least 18 of them) shows kind of that it was for her...well maybe it was part of a greater sheme to get close to 15 year olds again..but it might just not.

Well it's just how our society thinks, there are other societies that marry that age and younger....Even historically, people used to marry someone much younger.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well it's just how our society thinks, there are other societies that marry that age and younger....Even historically, people used to marry someone much younger.
thank you for this really important and not known fact debbie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
thank you for this really important and not known fact debbie. No prob.

You only have to cross the Channel and it would have been totally legal.

(Unless, as I commented earlier, he was teaching the girl at the time).


What this all boils down to, of course, is that after the Soham murders there have been this heinous calls for accusations against someone being taken as reason to bar them from certain jobs. ACCUSATIONS.

Such hysteria from the public and media causes this. I will be sick to my stomach if unproven allegations are ever used as a basis to do anyhting at all to someone.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You only have to cross the Channel and it would have been totally legal.

(Unless, as I commented earlier, he was teaching the girl at the time).


What this all boils down to, of course, is that after the Soham murders there have been this heinous calls for accusations against someone being taken as reason to bar them from certain jobs. ACCUSATIONS.

Such hysteria from the public and media causes this. I will be sick to my stomach if unproven allegations are ever used as a basis to do anyhting at all to someone.

Agreed!

Originally posted by Ushgarak


Other than his original offence- which was considered so trivial that he only received a caution, nothing approaching a conviction- he's done nothing illegal since then.

(and I would be interested to know if he was teaching this girl at the time, because that's a different matter). But regardless, he thought he was in the clear, and he does not deserve the reputation he now has- i.e. unable to find a job anywhere and having to live with police-assisted protection due to the possibility of vigilante attacks.



Precisely. Unless there was a fiduciary breach, it seems rather minor (excuse the pun).

Originally posted by Ushgarak

You only have to cross the Channel and it would have been totally legal.

True, as well, and a whole other thorny issue.

I know of people that have been with their partner since they were 14-15, and their partner was above the age of consent.

All a very weird set of double standards and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Precisely. Unless there was a fiduciary breach, it seems rather minor (excuse the pun).



True, as well, and a whole other thorny issue.

I know of people that have been with their partner since they were 14-15, and their partner was above the age of consent.

All a very weird set of double standards and hypocrisy.

All true!