Gender: Male Location: The Fortress, North Pole with Santa
Account Restricted
I don't think this guy is a perv!!!!
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!
__________________
herd behavior is a comical thing - Thanks Silver Spider
Last edited by Sir Whirlysplat on Jan 17th, 2006 at 09:07 PM
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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?
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
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"?
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 17th, 2006 08:56 PM
