Well, I suppose he could just live on benefits that the rest of us pay for because he’s “unemployable” instead of getting the job and doing something useful. 🙄

Because you suggested that drunk men who don’t obtain consent should be absolved of their crime.

Exactly where did I suggest that?

Wait are you suggesting when I say drunk you think I mean unconscious.

If so, that did not even enter my head.

beefheart – Member
I think what’s worrying here is he sought employment at an establishment named Fifteen.

Well at least he’s raised his aim a bit…

I’m not sure you can be in the rehabilitation business and only deal with lovely people. Presumably some people here would like to see Fifteen staffed entirely by rosy-cheeked apple scrumpers, of which there are not many in central London.

It’s got to be much better that the guy is stably employed and working with adults than being on the dole and wandering the streets purposeless.

Edit

There’s a big fancy hotel near us that employs ex offenders. I know this because I know both of the lads they’ve employed. The hotel actively encourages the prison I work in to ‘produce’ (for want of a better term) decent, qualified chefs through the catering course that our prison offers.
Good thing I say.

Good on Jamie Oliver I say. He seems to be one of the few “celebrities” to use his status to actually try and make a difference.

People in his position are damned if they do and damned if they don’t: If he does nothing, then he is yet another fat-cat celebrity; if he does something he is purely doing it to further his bank balance.

If only more were like him, and I include those “non-celebrity” keyboard warriors in that, many of whom do nothing.

It seems a couple of philosophical issues are implicit in this debate. So let’s presume (for the sake of argument and indeed because it seems to line up with most of the views on here) that most fair minded folks are broadly in favour of allowing ex-prisoners a second chance and believe that having served one’s time, whatever length of time the justice system has allocated, means they have received a punishment for their crimes. I am of this opinion.

I think from this shared starting point, people’s views diverge on two main issues:
1. Is there something unique about sex-related crimes (rape or paedophilia in these cases) that means such offenders possess certain psychological characteristics which should impact how they should be treated after being released? Such issues could be whether simply spending time in prison is enough to rehabilitate them, or whether safety measures for members of the public should be taken, ie not working near kids.

2. Another issue is whether what we would do in Jamie Oliver’s (or the FA’s) situation should be the same as what we think they should be doing. That is to say, many folk have asked if JO would have hired the guy if one of his own kids was the victim. Although this seems like a reactionary emotive response, it raises an interesting question. If you would not hire and work with the guy yourself, if your kid were his victim, then isn’t that showing a sort of disrespect to the victim and her actual parents in JO’s case?

Personally, I think a lot of people who would generally believe in giving ex-offenders a second chance run into difficulty when their intuitions conflict with 1&2 above. So they’re theoretically in favour of JO’s decision but may have an intuition that sex crimes are particularly heinous and that they would not want to work with someone who sexually assaulted their child, sister, brother.

So it’s hard to be objective about something we feel subjectively about.

So it’s hard to be objective about something we feel subjectively about.

Hence why we have a Judicial system decide the guilt and punishment. As said above, it is not up to the general public to punish.

Good post there and sex offenders test everyone commitment to rehabilitation

As a bloke, there is one part of your body which gives consent and you can only be too drunk to give consent if that part says so.

Total horseshit sorry, just because you respond doesn’t mean you’re giving consent. The same goes for women.

esselgruntfuttock – Member
There’s a big fancy hotel near us that employs ex offenders. I know this because I know both of the lads they’ve employed. The hotel actively encourages the prison I work in to ‘produce’ (for want of a better term) decent, qualified chefs through the catering course that our prison offers.
Good thing I say.

There are ex-offenders and there are ex-offenders. Some people will never rehabilitate.
I’m all for giving people a chance, but, if an ‘ex offender’ convicted of child rape, cooked my food in a restaurant and was within reach of me and my family, I would really not be happy.
Would you take your family there, safely in the knowledge that the system had ‘rehabilated’ them, being confident they were now decent members of society?
The fact that this guy was put on the sex offenders register INDEFINITELY and told he could not be around children alone would pretty much put me off eating there.

would pretty much put me off eating there.

What would you be afraid of, exactly?

For my sins, I am a Plymouth Argyle supporter. We had the same issue with Luke McCormick. I myself worked for the Probation Service supervising sex offenders and continue to work with perpetrators of domestic violence in New Zealand. None of these people in societies eyes are nice or good people. But, if we force people to the fringes of society we exacerbate the problems which in some cases lead to their offending.

I think Mr Oliver as a tv personality is a bit of a plonker, but the work his 15 restaurant does in my book and other businesses which support rehabilitating offenders is a wonderful thing and I commend them.

What would you be afraid of, exactly?

Maybe it’s just me?

Let’s all invite a convicted paedophile round for Christmas dinner with the family and see how we get on!

Through my line of work I know that some people will never change, despite the good intentions of every Guardian reader out there…..

How very Daily Mail of you.

He’s got to work somewhere.

How very Daily Mail of you.
He’s got to work somewhere.

Well how very pro-paedophile of you.
Why couldn’t he be employed somewhere people don’t pay a premium to take their families to?
Anywhere on an industrial estate?

Well how very pro-paedophile of you.
Why couldn’t he be employed somewhere people don’t pay a premium to take their families to?
Anywhere on an industrial estate?

He will be employed as a chef in a professional kitchen in a restaurant. He’s not being employed to do the catering for a nursery or school. As a junior chef he will be lucky to get time to go for a wee let alone have time to find and assault children. Where you go to eat and pay for the privalege is your choice. If you feel strongly just don’t go to Fifteen.

It’s not pro-paedophiles, it’s pro-rehabilitation. Also, I believe from previous posts here, he may not be technically a paedophile…

It would seem more logical to not worry about known paedophiles getting access to your children because you can prevent it. Maybe worry more about who is having access to your children in less controlled circumstances…? Anyone could be an unconvicted, undiscovered paedophile.

I’m guessing you don’t have children jamj1974?

Apologies in advance – I am tired so may not make immediate sense…

In answer, we have 3 children, daughter of 9 and twin boys of 7.

I think I understand where you are coming from but I suppose we feel differently about it…

We believe that the best defence from any form of child abuse is awareness, confidence and education. We made sure that all our children from as soon as it was practicable understood what people could do to them or not. We have also tried to make them feel the truth that they own their own bodies and that we will always listen if they are uncomfortable about something. Maybe we have been a little over-concerned about the possibility of abuse – but during childhood I had two friends who were sexually abused and wanted to do what I could to prevent it.

So what does this mean…? I think it means I would probably take my children to Fifteen with very few qualms. However, as normal my children would go to the bathroom in pairs – as this prevents them being easily segregated and vulnerable.

What I was also trying to say in my last post is that in fact my children have already probably (Not as determined by any established statistic just my own supposition) been in the company of a paedophile – just one that is as yet unknown to the criminal justice system. We think all we can do is what we have done in terms of minimising risk. Taking them or not taking them to Fifteen is not likely to expose them to harm more than they have been already and will be again.

Beefheart: I do, and I have no f’ing clue what you’re on about.

I’m all for giving people a chance, but, if an ‘ex offender’ convicted of child rape, cooked my food in a restaurant and was within reach of me and my family, I would really not be happy.

Are you worried he’s going to jizz in your korma or charge through from the kitchen and grope someone?

I completely understand the rehabilitate views,
But I thought of child rape and what initially flashed in my mind were the scenes from the green mile where the big fella sees what he sees when he touches the man who commited the crimes he was convicted of, and i felt genuinely sickened.

Then realised this was child murder as well as child rape and fiction.
I then though of poor maddeline mccan and speculate what a truely awful terrifying fate she may have suffered, again child murder at the hands of child rapists, but pure speculation on my part as no one knows what has happened to her.
Then I though of huntly and his crimes and of the poor girl whose skull fragments were found in the fire place,
Again murder and all relatively young children.

And the only person I could think of who is a child rapist but not murderer was the I think welsh rock/ pop band member who went out with fern cotton, but I think this involved babies so again not really comparible.

But if you just say child rapist with out actually thinking about what the term means you can talk about jobs am rehabilitation. But if you actually think about child rape and what the lable implies you, well I, feel deeply sickened and squeezing there neck untill, seems completely reasonable.

So that is why people may not wish to eat somewhere that hires a child rapist and it is a feeling much deeper than being scared or reading the daily mail.

So that is why people may not wish to eat somewhere that hires a child rapist and it is a feeling much deeper than being scared or reading the daily mail.

The big thing here is knowing, how many people are doing things for you that you don’t know, what does it change?

Through my line of work I know that some people will never change

Some…not all

If there was evidence that this person would never change then he could have been given a life sentence or an indefinite sentence for public protection. If he poses a real risk of further offending he will have a sopo (sex asbo) this will manage his risk factors with a power to arrest and imprison for otherwise lawful behavior. All of this backed by being on the register and monitored by specialist police officers. Much better having him stable in a fixed address and a job with prospects than isolated homeless at a lose end and harder to monitor.
The would Jamie employ him if it was his own child who was the victim thing is nonsense of course he would not it would be wholly inappropriate . How could that be fair to the victim to know their attacker was at Daddy’s work,how would that work in terms of personnel management ” you are picking on me cos I raped your daughter that ragu is perfectly seasoned.
“
I find St JO’s TV character a bit annoying but the real person seems willing to do the right thing even when it is risky or unpopular and for that I admire him.

I’m guessing you don’t have children jamj1974?

Well if you refuse to take your kids places at the risk that someone working there may have done something unsavoury in their past then your living room must be a very familiar place to them and I feel sorry for them