Downing Street Says » Sex Offenders Lists

Asked when Ruth Kelly resigned, would she become the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that as he had made clear yesterday, Ruth Kelly’s position remained unchanged, and would remain unchanged.

Asked if the Prime Minister knew who authorised that Paul Reeve should not go on List 99, the PMOS set out the position. Ruth Kelly had quite properly said that what happened in the DFES was her responsibility. There had always been borderline cases in this sensitive area, and the decision-making process had remained substantially the same for decades on how people dealt with those few borderline cases. As a result of the Bichard report, we were already looking at a new vetting scheme, and Ruth Kelly in her statement would deal with the issue of how and when that would be implemented. The PMOS said it was right to look again at not only each borderline case, but also the overall decision-making process that had been in place for decades, and had been used by successive Governments.

It was not a way of avoiding questions, but rather, it was the reverse. It was a way of having a route and branch look at the underlying issues, such as: should Ministers be the ones who dealt ultimately with the cases. Was there uniformity of approach from the police, and how could we get the police advice more easily into the decision-making process? This was not an issue about an individual decision; it was an issue about the process, and how we fitted and modernised that process within the overall trend of how we dealt with child protection, and how we had dealt with child protection, which started with the Sex Offenders List being introduced in 1997.

Asked if that then suggested that people would never know who specifically authorised that particular decision, and therefore, whatever the consequences might be, was it down to Ruth Kelly, the PMOS said that as Ruth Kelly had said, she took full responsibility for this matter, and what happened in her department. It was better to deal with this as a policy issue, rather than trying to turn it into a blame game. This process had been handled in this way for decades, so it was the process that we had to look at, as well as the small number of borderline cases.

Asked why it had taken this particular case to make a review happen, when the Bichard report had been published over 18 months ago, the PMOS replied that we were already committed in The Queen’s Speech to implementing the Bichard Report, and we were already looking at a new vetting scheme. What this case had highlighted were the underlying issues, therefore, it was right and proper to use that to look again fundamentally at the review. Ruth Kelly had said that she would come back to give a full report to Parliament on the matter. That was the way to deal with this, and Ruth Kelly would set it out more clearly in the House later today.

Asked if the Prime Minister felt that anybody on the Sex Offenders List should automatically go on List 99, the PMOS said that although it was a legitimate question, people should not get away from the fact that there were cases which had always been considered borderline. The PMOS gave a hypothetical example: somebody logged onto an adult pornography site which was a legal thing to do, and on that site was also child pornography.

Should that person go on the List and lose their job as a result of that; that was the question. Was there uniformity of cautioning policy across the country? Should a decision be taken with these borderline cases by Ministers? Or should it be left to professionals? The PMOS said those were legitimate questions. Therefore, there were difficult dilemmas that had to be resolved, and there were difficult decision-making processes that had to be looked at again, in the light of where we were now, rather than where we were when this process was originally set up. The way in which people accessed pornography had changed because of the internet, and the way in which people viewed pornography had also changed, so therefore, we had to update our processes as well. That was what the review was essentially about.

Asked to explain the paradox of the Prime Minister talking about reversing the burden of truth when dealing with petty crime, and yet jumping through hoops to give people who had admitted their guilt by accepting a police caution, the benefit of the doubt when put in charge of young children, the PMOS replied that what we had done by establishing this review was accept that there were legitimate questions to be asked. One of which was: should people who were given a caution automatically be put on List 99, and therefore lose their job?

We had accepted that that was a legitimate question. The PMOS said it was not unfair to say that the review should be given a short time in which to consider that type of question, because there would then be other questions that would lead on from that. Was there uniformity of cautioning policy by the police up and down the country? The PMOS said the journalist was right to pose the question, and it would be one that would be considered by the review. The PMOS said he was not going to pre-empt the outcome of the review.

Put that a possible explanation was that the police had been over-zealous with the people they were arresting, and if another Government department thought that there was nothing wrong, would part of the review look at what the police were "up to", the PMOS replied that part of the review would look at how the police advice was fed into the process. Part of that had to be was there a uniformity in standard, for example, in cautioning, and did all police forces approach this in the same way? Part of the reason why there had been an element of Ministerial discretion had been to deal with that kind of issue.

Asked if it was a Home Office matter, rather than a DFES matter, and there would the review look into it, the PMOS said it had to look at all the elements of it, including the role of the police, in a positive, as well as a negative sense.

Asked to clarify that the review was going to be about the process, and not about the individual case, the PMOS said the review was about two things. It was looking back over the small number of borderline cases there had been since the Sex Offenders List was set up in 1997, and also, the process. Clearly, yes, there was concern about individual cases, but individual cases would arise out of a process, therefore it needed to be looked at.

Asked what was the point of a review of the Sex Offenders List if people were not automatically included on List 99, the PMOS said that the Sex Offenders List dealt with all kinds of things. There were certain specified offences where people were automatically barred from dealing with children if they had committed that offence. The whole point of the Bichard review, and the new vetting scheme that we were planning post-Bichard review was to unify those two things. Clearly, as part of that, people had to consider questions such as: if someone received a caution, were they automatically excluded from their job?

Asked if the review failed that approach, would it require legislation, the PMOS said we did need to introduce legislation to implement the Bichard report, and Ruth Kelly would address the issue of how that could be done in her statement.

Put that the implication of what was said was that the Prime Minister thought it was unfair for criticism to be directed at an individual, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s view was that there had been a process to deal with a small number of borderline cases that had been in place for decades. Therefore, in terms of how that process operated, and the criteria under which it operated, we not only needed to reassure the public about the individual cases, but we also needed to fundamentally look at the overall process and see whether it was fit for modern day use. We also needed to see how it took into account and implemented the Bichard review.

16 Comments »

the list 99 should be made more publicly available to protect the public, this gose for all sex offenders!
Comment by Ms Spectre — 17 Jul 2006 on 3:12 pm | Link
the list 99 should be made more publicly available to protect the public, this gose for all sex offenders!
Comment by Ms Spectre — 17 Jul 2006 on 3:12 pm | Link
the list 99 should be made more publicly available to protect the public, this gose for all sex offenders!
Comment by Ms Spectre — 17 Jul 2006 on 3:13 pm | Link
i know somebody that was the victim of a sex offender and it was someone very close to her that turned against her i think people should be told who these perverts are.
Comment by emma — 2 Nov 2006 on 11:23 am | Link
i know somebody that was the victim of a sex offender and it was someone very close to her that turned against her i think people should be told who these perverts are.
Comment by emma — 2 Nov 2006 on 11:24 am | Link
Everybody should be able to see the sex offender list, and neighbours new and old shuld be informed of who they got living in there street. I was sexual assualted by a close friends husband and yes I took him to court and he was sentenced last week to 33 months. He has destroyed my life,my relationship, my children, family,friends lives for last 6 months, and mine still now. my holiday was ruin and only started think about christmas last week for my kids sake. Justice was done this time and he is off the streets for a while anyway to stop someone and there family going through wot all us been through.
Comment by tracy — 18 Dec 2006 on 11:51 pm | Link
what is the site were you can look up the names of the sex offenders round your area ………..
Comment by shelley agate — 19 Dec 2006 on 2:23 pm | Link
i served 6 months for having under age sex with a girl that was lying about her age !! we met in club where only 18 and above is allowed and it was found during the trial that she had been lying about her age and also about a rape allogation which thankfully was dropped because she was lying i was since put on the sex offender register for 10 years which has completely ruined my life and any future prospects i may have ! I once had a good life with many prospects until the vicious lies of somebody who should have had a better upbringing and been tought not to lie ! unfortunately because of her age she was not prosecuted but had she been slightly older there is a law that states if somebody is lying about their true person to entise sex that they themselves are breaking the law ! I feel she have been prosecuted for wasting police time a false allogation of rape and for lying people should be taught this is wrong not taught they can get away with it !! As for the lists being made public yes for paedophiles and rapists but no for the rest i think only the people that that prevent an immediate threat should be reckognised !!!!
Comment by bob joohnsson — 30 Jan 2007 on 6:21 pm | Link
i served 6 months for having under age sex with a girl that was lying about her age !! we met in club where only 18 and above is allowed and it was found during the trial that she had been lying about her age and also about a rape allogation which thankfully was dropped because she was lying i was since put on the sex offender register for 10 years which has completely ruined my life and any future prospects i may have ! I once had a good life with many prospects until the vicious lies of somebody who should have had a better upbringing and been tought not to lie ! unfortunately because of her age she was not prosecuted but had she been slightly older there is a law that states if somebody is lying about their true person to entise sex that they themselves are breaking the law ! I feel she have been prosecuted for wasting police time a false allogation of rape and for lying people should be taught this is wrong not taught they can get away with it !! As for the lists being made public yes for paedophiles and rapists but no for the rest i think only the people that that prevent an immediate threat should be reckognised !!!!
Comment by bob joohnsson — 30 Jan 2007 on 6:21 pm | Link
i was abused by my father for all my child hood as was my sister as was her daughter he has been treated a lot better than we have, we dont no where he is as when he was releashed we wasnt allowed to no where he was goin now i live in fear he will walk past me in the street.
Comment by jackie roberts — 1 Mar 2007 on 3:35 pm | Link
i was abused by my father for all my child hood as was my sister as was her daughter he has been treated a lot better than we have, we dont no where he is as when he was releashed we wasnt allowed to no where he was goin now i live in fear he will walk past me in the street.
Comment by jackie roberts — 1 Mar 2007 on 3:36 pm | Link
I have just found out that my babys grandad is a sex offender (which is the babys dads dad) and i want to know if he is on the sex offenders list and every body keeps telling me there is not 1. I want to see this list if possible so i can c put my mind at rest for my babys sake at least!

I wish that someone would help me
Comment by m — 11 Jun 2007 on 10:59 pm | Link
I have just found out that my babys grandad is a sex offender (which is the babys dads dad) and i want to know if he is on the sex offenders list and every body keeps telling me there is not 1. I want to see this list if possible so i can c put my mind at rest for my babys sake at least!

I wish that someone would help me
Comment by m — 11 Jun 2007 on 11:00 pm | Link
I want to know if i can view the sex offenders list?
My sister is taking my 7 year old niece to live with a man she has met on the internet chat room. I feel sick with worry she only nows what he is telling her.

Please help me find out.
Comment by Diane — 12 Jun 2007 on 9:07 pm | Link
i was abused from the age of 4 to the age of 8 by my father and his friend, i never had the stength to reort my father and what he did to me has almost destroyed my life. i now have two daughters and fear for them, i don’t want them to have the life that i had, i think people should no if offenders are in living in the area so we can keep our children safe.

make sex offender lists availible to the public!!
Comment by joanne — 18 Jun 2007 on 11:01 am | Link
The sex offenders register needs to be made public, it also needs a clearer definition of what a ‘sex offense’ is.. VThose found guilty of violent sex crimes, including child abuse, rape, even sexual harassment are the only ones that should be listed, otherwise, the offense needs to be listed against the offender. And for the most dangerous sex offenders, chemical castration should NOT be an option, it should be compulsory.
Comment by Andi — 19 Jun 2007 on 8:51 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, January 12, 2006

Sex Offenders Lists

16 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries