Ruth Kelly

[Jacques]

Should she be sacked?

[TheProf]

She could do with a make-over & tidy up the eyebrows.

[planeterotica]

Yes she should be sacked but i doubt if it will happen.

[Porn crackers]

I would be very surprised if she isn't booted out. Initially it was about a person working in a school who had accepted a caution. So inocent until proven guilty and a caution isn't a guilty conviction, so maybe doubt about that decision. Although common sense should have been applied.....
BUT now there is a convicted sex offender approved and working in schools. Well after what happened to those two poor little girls in Soham on a lovely summers day how dare the government not learnt it's lesson from that. !furious!

She must go and Blair better not bring Blunkett back in her place as Mendellson is already sorted........

PC

[stripeysydney]

Mendellson? don't you mean Mandelson, one's a dead writer of classical music and the other is a snake.

[Porn crackers]

Don't know how the classics crept into it.........

Anyhow the snake it is.

PC

[DavidS]

No she should not be sacked. Secretaries of State can hardly be held responsible for the appointment of indivdual school teachers. In any event no one has really asked the right question here. Either the individual concerned was correctly on the Sex Offenders Register in which case he should not be employed as a a teacher, or he should not have been on the register in which case the integrity of the register is questionable. While I understand the need for a special register for paedophiles I do not not see the need for one for other sexual offences, over and above the recording of the conviction in the usual way.

[steve56]

when she was talking last night on the news it sounded as if shed been wound up like a toy or programmed to speak.