Jamie Oliver under scrutiny for hiring a convicted paedophile.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Discuss

"Paedophile, 24, who raped 12-year-old girl is handed a job as a chef at Jamie Oliver's Fifteen restaurant ahead of thousands of disadvantaged applicants

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795269/paedophile-24-raped-12-year-old-girl-handed-job-chef-jamie-oliver-s-fifteen-restaurant-ahead-thousands-disadvantaged-applicants.html#ixzz3GMRicIjh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795269/paedophile-24-raped-12-year-old-girl-handed-job-chef-jamie-oliver-s-fifteen-restaurant-ahead-thousands-disadvantaged-applicants.html

Jamie Oliver has defended a decision to employ a convicted child rapist at one of his London restaurants.
David Mason – who forced himself on a girl of 12 as they played computer games – has been handed a job as an apprentice chef at the Fifteen restaurant.
Last night a spokesman for Oliver said Mason should be given the chance to turn his life around.
Convicted paedophile David Mason, 24, left, has been taken on as one of Jamie Oliver's Fifteen apprentices
+6
Convicted paedophile David Mason, 24, left, has been taken on as one of Jamie Oliver's Fifteen apprentices
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has taken on a convicted paedophile as part of his Fifteen programme for disadvantaged youngsters
+6
David Mason, 24, who raped a 12-year-old girl in 2009, is now working as a trainee at Oliver's central London restaurant, Fifteen
+6
A spokesman for Oliver confirmed that Mason was working as a trainee at Fifteen restaurant in London, right
But those who know Mason, 24, are said to be outraged that he has been boasting about his £130 a week job on Facebook.
‘It’s disgusting that a lad who raped a 12-year-old girl can be gifted the kind of opportunity that honest, hard-working youngsters across the country are crying out for,’ one said.
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next



Barnado's accused of blaming victim of sex abuse for assault that happened in flat owned by...
Mason, from Feltham in West London, was 19 when he raped the girl and was sentenced to four years in a young offenders’ institution after admitting the crime.
He served two years and spent two more doing probation work before he started the year-long apprentice programme six weeks ago.
‘I know he served his time but everyone is sickened he’s got a golden opportunity ahead of people who haven’t committed a horrible crime, and the way he is showing off on Facebook,’ Mason’s former acquaintance told the Sun.
Set up in 2002, Oliver’s Fifteen programme is designed to ‘help young people stay out of trouble and make something of their lives’.
The apprentices attend college and work shifts at the Fifteen restaurant in Islington, pictured above
+6
The apprentices attend college and work shifts at the Fifteen restaurant in Islington, pictured above
A spokesman for Oliver last night said of Mason: ‘He was completely honest about his past when he applied and we decided that, as he’d served his sentence, he should be allowed a place on the programme.
‘It is not unusual for us to work with people who want to try to turn their lives around. David spent two years in prison and two years doing probationary work with the Prince’s Trust, so four years of punishment.
‘We took great care deciding whether he was appropriate and he is six weeks into the course and doing very well.’
We decided that as he'd served his sentence, he should be allowed a place
The apprentices, who go through a rigorous and competitive selection programme, attend college one day a week but work mostly in the Fifteen restaurant kitchen, learning the skills needed to be a top chef.
Oliver was awarded the MBE in 2003 for his role in setting up Fifteen and his work with young people.
Last night Andrew Neilson of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: ‘If we expect people who commit crimes to never do it again, then we have to accept that once someone has served their sentence, they deserve a chance to become a safe and productive citizen.
‘Jamie Oliver and his Fifteen restaurant should be commended for the opportunities they provide to young people trying to turn their lives around.’
Mason’s lawyer, defending him in 2009 at Isleworth Crown Court, had said his client was immature and unaware of the consequences of his actions. But Judge Richard McGregor Johnson, sentencing, said Mason ‘knew very well that having sex with such a young girl was wrong’.
JAMIE OLIVER'S FIFTEEN: SUCCESSFUL SCHEME SCARRED BY TRAGEDY
One of Jamie Oliver's first Fifteen apprentices was Kevin Boyle, a 26-year-old Crystal Palace supporter from Purley, Surrey.
A keen and talented chef, he worked for Vinoteca restaurant in London and cooked for the Prince of Wales and former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, after finishing Oliver's scheme.
But in October 2011, the Lancaster University graduate, then 26, was reported missing from his home. In January 2012, he was found dead in a garden in nearby Coulsdon, and his mother, Patti, 54, said he had committed suicide with a kit he had bought for £44 over the internet.

+6
Tragedy: Jamie Oliver with Kevin Boyle (right), who cooked for Tony Blair but later took his own life
After Mr Boyle's death Jamie Oliver said: 'I'm deeply saddened by this tragic news. I am proud to have been able to call Kevin a friend for ten years, and he was also a constant supporter of Fifteen and all the apprentices and graduates who came after him through the course.'
It was the second tragic death to hit the chef's trainee scheme.
In 2008, Christopher Pethick, 20, was found hanged a few miles from the Fifteen restaurant in Watergate Bay, Cornwall.
He dropped out of the course in 2006 after two months with severe depression.
Fifteen trainee chef Tom Baisden, left, with Jamie Oliver, admitted being involved in a £3million gem heist
+6
Fifteen trainee chef Tom Baisden, left, with Jamie Oliver, admitted being involved in a £3million gem heist
Crime has touched the Fifteen trainee scheme, too.
Five years ago, a former apprentice on Jamie Oliver's Fifteen scheme was sent to prison after admitting taking part in a £3million jewellery heist in Southend Airport.
Former drug addict Tom Baisden, then 28, from Thundersley, Essex, admitted theft, conspiracy to steal, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by plotting to steal gems, Cartier watches and designer handbags.
He told the court he was inspired by his celebrity chef mentor to confess to his crimes, after Oliver told him : 'You can't run away from things or hide from them.'

[Mystic Mock]

Paedophiles can't be saved imo as they can't help who they're attracted to so they'll keep being a menace to society.

People should bycott Jamie Oliver's Restaurant for hiring such a disgraceful Human Being who also gloats about the whole thing, also his victim is not getting rewarded for what she suffered so why should he for only being punished for 4 years? Well to be exact only 2 years in prison.

[Mystic Mock]

Paedophiles can't be saved imo as they can't help who they're attracted to so they'll keep being a menace to society.

People should bycott Jamie Oliver's Restaurant for hiring such a disgraceful Human Being who also gloats about the whole thing, also his victim is not getting rewarded for what she suffered so why should he for only being punished for 4 years? Well to be exact only 2 years in prison.

[Tom4784]

My point of view here is similar to that of the Ched threat. I can understand both sides of the argument.

I like that Jamie Oliver is endorsing reformation as it's a concept that's often cast aside in today's world although it's vitally important, people who don't get given the chance to reform are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

From a marketing and PR perspective though, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the candidate as the message will inevitably get lost within the flurry of tabloid headlines.

[Mystic Mock]

Ched and Dave can get normal jobs in factories or whatever, the law abiding citizens should be getting their jobs as they've earned it more.

[Creggle]

I have a feeling Jamie hired him as an edgy, out-there statement more than anything. It isn't fair he got the job over more skilled applicants, especially as he is a paedophile, feels almost like Jamie is rewarding him for being one. :idc:

[Marc]

Ched and Dave can get normal jobs in factories or whatever, the law abiding citizens should be getting their jobs as they've earned it more.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02380/chas-and-dave0_2380641b.jpg

[user104658]

Controversy alert: he was 19 and the girl was 12 (probably in adolescence) and whilst this is obviously very wrong, and would be wrong no matter what her age was (as he forced himself on her), and is definitely worse with her being so young, and whilst he may be considered a child molester in the eyes of the law... In truth, he is probably not actually a paedophile.

"Just" a rapist. Nonetheless, he did prey on someone young and vulnerable, and whilst as I said in the footballer thread - people need to be able to get back into society after serving their sentence or the whole thing is a farce - I personally am not convinced that he should even be out of prison yet let alone making huge career strides. It seems like questionably soft sentencing to me.

[Livia]

I don't believe he is a paedophile, despite the fact she was 12, but he is obviously a rapist. However, he's served the time he was sentenced to serve and I'd rather he was a functioning, contributing member of society rather than being on benefits with no future and no chance of rehabilitation.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

^He's a paedo and a rapist. The definition of a paedo is sexual attraction to minors. He must have felt some attraction to want to rape her.


Don't understand why a lot of people are suddenly so soft and lenient towards criminals and the crimes. Like John Grisham, Judy Finnighan and now this. Someone made a point on dailymail if he wants to give second chances or sympathise why not sympathise with the victim and give her this opportunity. This is a good opportunity that not every day good people get so why not give it to the victim instead of giving it to the criminal. It's like rewarding him.

If he wants to contribute to society there are plenty of jobs that he could do where he won't feel like crime literally pays.
Meanwhile his victim probably still feels like ****, might have self esteem issues, might suffer socially but he's the one that is being rewarded with a good opportunity. Sucks.

[Niamh.]

^He's a paedo and a rapist. The definition of a paedo is sexual attraction to minors. He must have felt some attraction to want to rape her.


Don't understand why a lot of people are suddenly so soft and lenient towards criminals and the crimes. Like John Grisham, Judy Finnighan and now this. Someone made a point on dailymail if he wants to give second chances or sympathise why not sympathise with the victim and give her this opportunity. This is a good opportunity that not every day good people get so why not give it to the victim instead of giving it to the criminal. It's like rewarding him.

If he wants to contribute to society there are plenty of jobs htat he could do where he won't feel like crime literally pays.
Meanwhile his victim probably still feels like ****, might have self esteem issues, might suffer socially but he's the one that is being rewarded with a good opportunity. Sucks.

:clap1:

[Vicky.]

I dont personally believe convicted paedos should ever be released back into the public. Too much of a risk to take.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

I dont personally believe convicted paedos should ever be released back into the public. Too much of a risk to take.

Let's see if Jamie trusts him enough to leave him around his children. :umm2:

[Livia]

^He's a paedo and a rapist. The definition of a paedo is sexual attraction to minors. He must have felt some attraction to want to rape her.


Don't understand why a lot of people are suddenly so soft and lenient towards criminals and the crimes. Like John Grisham, Judy Finnighan and now this. Someone made a point on dailymail if he wants to give second chances or sympathise why not sympathise with the victim and give her this opportunity. This is a good opportunity that not every day good people get so why not give it to the victim instead of giving it to the criminal. It's like rewarding him.

If he wants to contribute to society there are plenty of jobs htat he could do where he won't feel like crime literally pays.
Meanwhile his victim probably still feels like ****, might have self esteem issues, might suffer socially but he's the one that is being rewarded with a good opportunity. Sucks.


Once someone's served their time they should get on with their lives. It's not for you or me to decide what they should or shouldn't do, or that they should live in poverty or on benefits.

You have no idea how his victim feels, that's all supposition, and there's nothing to stop her getting on with her life and making a success of it.

You can either bang criminals up forever, or you make them serve their time and set them free in the hopes they will be rehabilitated. You can't make them continue to serve a sentence once they're out.

[Niamh.]

I dont personally believe convicted paedos should ever be released back into the public. Too much of a risk to take.

Me neither, the only way of testing out if they're actually rehabilitated is by putting them back into society and putting more kids at risk.....Who's life is more important?

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Once someone's served their time they should get on with their lives. It's not for you or me to decide what they should or shouldn't do, or that they should live in poverty or on benefits.

You have no idea how his victim feels, that's all supposition, and there's nothing to stop her getting on with her life and making a success of it.

You can either bang criminals up forever, or you make them serve their time and set them free in the hopes they will be rehabilitated. You can't make them continue to serve a sentence once they're out.

I have a hard time with the moto they've done their time they should get on with their lives because IMO sentences kind of suck in this country especially. 2-4 years (I think) for raping a 12 year old? I don't think that's long enough of a sentence. But it is what he got and fair enough he is out now so he should get on with things but not something to this scale.

And of course I don't know how the victim feels but it's normal to assume that how she feels will be like a lifetime sentence.

[Josy]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread.

A 19 year old is an ADULT a 12 year old is a CHILD, the man is a Paedophile and a rapist and there's no excuses to be made to say otherwise.

The restaurant will suffer due to this being made public and rightly so IMO.

[arista]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread.

A 19 year old is an ADULT a 12 year old is a CHILD, the man is a Paedophile and a rapist and there's no excuses to be made to say otherwise.

The restaurant will suffer due to this being made public and rightly so IMO.


Yes
but he is saying everyone gets a 2nd chance
and standing by that.

But I wonder if anyone will Spray Paint
his place?

[arista]

I dont personally believe convicted paedos should ever be released back into the public. Too much of a risk to take.


Maybe Jamie thinks he has been fixed in head?

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/16/1413455641216_wps_6_Jamie_Oliver_Taken_from.jpg

I have yet to see a full debate on this
on a News Ch.

Its all USA Ebola Panic

[arista]

My point of view here is similar to that of the Ched threat. I can understand both sides of the argument.

I like that Jamie Oliver is endorsing reformation as it's a concept that's often cast aside in today's world although it's vitally important, people who don't get given the chance to reform are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

From a marketing and PR perspective though, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the candidate as the message will inevitably get lost within the flurry of tabloid headlines.


Yes Jamies Cafe /Shop "chain"
is getting PR?
Some are not even aware he has a Chain

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/16/1413452465130_wps_5_Jamie_Oliver_s_Fifteen_re.jpg
North London trendy place
but who has worked there

[Headie]

I don't believe he is a paedophile, despite the fact she was 12, but he is obviously a rapist. However, he's served the time he was sentenced to serve and I'd rather he was a functioning, contributing member of society rather than being on benefits with no future and no chance of rehabilitation.

:umm2:

[Pete.]

I don't believe he is a paedophile, despite the fact she was 12, but he is obviously a rapist. However, he's served the time he was sentenced to serve and I'd rather he was a functioning, contributing member of society rather than being on benefits with no future and no chance of rehabilitation.

wtf he's clearly a paedophile

[Kizzy]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread.

A 19 year old is an ADULT a 12 year old is a CHILD, the man is a Paedophile and a rapist and there's no excuses to be made to say otherwise.

The restaurant will suffer due to this being made public and rightly so IMO.

:clap1::clap1:

[Mystic Mock]

Some people on this thread have given me some of the most disturbing posts that I've ever read, seriously rehabilitating a paedophile!? And he is one as the girl was 12 at the time.

Imo if these criminals are gonna get ****ty prison sentences then they should be punished on not being able to get the higher up jobs as it just seems like the UK's legal system is out to keep rewarding the criminals instead of the victims, or law abiding citizens full stop.

[Mystic Mock]

Some people on this thread have given me some of the most disturbing posts that I've ever read, seriously rehabilitating a paedophile!? And he is one as the girl was 12 at the time.

Imo if these criminals are gonna get ****ty prison sentences then they should be punished on not being able to get the higher up jobs as it just seems like the UK's legal system is out to keep rewarding the criminals instead of the victims, or law abiding citizens full stop.

[Livia]

Some people on this thread have given me some of the most disturbing posts that I've ever read, seriously rehabilitating a paedophile!? And he is one as the girl was 12 at the time.

Imo if these criminals are gonna get ****ty prison sentences then they should be punished on not being able to get the higher up jobs as it just seems like the UK's legal system is out to keep rewarding the criminals instead of the victims, or law abiding citizens full stop.

I find that impossible to believe.

[Liam-]

I find that impossible to believe.

[2]

[Mystic Mock]

I find that impossible to believe.

People saying that he was not a paedophile because he was 19 at the time is quite sick imo as it's trying to excuse Jamie Oliver's decision to hire him, and it's excusing his disgusting behaviour on a 12 year old girl.

[user104658]

People saying that he was not a paedophile because he was 19 at the time is quite sick imo as it's trying to excuse Jamie Oliver's decision to hire him, and it's excusing his disgusting behaviour on a 12 year old girl.

I can't believe what I have read in this thread.

A 19 year old is an ADULT a 12 year old is a CHILD, the man is a Paedophile and a rapist and there's no excuses to be made to say otherwise.

The restaurant will suffer due to this being made public and rightly so IMO.


The definition of a paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-adolescent children. A 12 year old is not necessarily pre-adolescent (some are, some aren't, puberty begins at different times) and therefore someone who is attracted to a 12 year old is not necessarily a paedophile. Illustratively: it's perfectly possible that a 12 year old might look 16, and that in that case, a 16 to 20 year old might find them physically attractive. It's then revealed that they are 12 - does that other person automatically "become a paedophile"? No, of course not. To put it bluntly; to know whether or not he's a paedophile, you would have to see a picture of the girl. If she is sexually developed, then he is NOT a paedophile. Full stop.

An adult actively, knowingly, pursuing sex with someone of that age is OBVIOUSLY morally abhorrent. This MUST be kept distinct, though, from bellowing "PAEDO" - because paedophilia is an abnormal psychological perversion. Branding someone who is not a paedophile as a paedophile isn't helpful.

Finally (and I find myself having to state this almost every time a case like this comes up) - "paedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable terms. There are paedophiles with self-restraint who have never harmed a child, and there are child molesters who are not necessarily paedophiles (though this is less common).

This is why the term "statutory rape" exists. There is a legal distinction. An adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child is a child molester in the eyes of the law. An adult having sex with an underage person who has reached sexual maturity is a statutory rapist. That distinction exists for the reasons outlined above; i.e. "they're NOT paedophiles".


What he is, however, is a convicted rapist and apparently a predatory one who preyed on someone young and vulnerable. This is bad enough. Certainly enough to condemn him, if someone was to feel so inclined. But banding around terms like "paedophile" is as helpful as stating without evidence that someone is "a psychopath" or "schizophrenic".

As usual, we have the press and popular culture to thank for the bastardisation of a psychological term.

[Kizzy]

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-adolescent children. A 12 year old is not necessarily pre-adolescent (some are, some aren't, puberty begins at different times) and therefore someone who is attracted to a 12 year old is not necessarily a paedophile. Illustratively: it's perfectly possible that a 12 year old might look 16, and that in that case, a 16 to 20 year old might find them physically attractive. It's then revealed that they are 12 - does that other person automatically "become a paedophile"? No, of course not. To put it bluntly; to know whether or not he's a paedophile, you would have to see a picture of the girl. If she is sexually developed, then he is NOT a paedophile. Full stop.

An adult actively, knowingly, pursuing sex with someone of that age is OBVIOUSLY morally abhorrent. This MUST be kept distinct, though, from bellowing "PAEDO" - because paedophilia is an abnormal psychological perversion. Branding someone who is not a paedophile as a paedophile isn't helpful.

Finally (and I find myself having to state this almost every time a case like this comes up) - "paedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable terms. There are paedophiles with self-restraint who have never harmed a child, and there are child molesters who are not necessarily paedophiles (though this is less common).

This is why the term "statutory rape" exists. There is a legal distinction. An adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child is a child molester in the eyes of the law. An adult having sex with an underage person who has reached sexual maturity is a statutory rapist. That distinction exists for the reasons outlined above; i.e. "they're NOT paedophiles".


What he is, however, is a convicted rapist and apparently a predatory one who preyed on someone young and vulnerable. This is bad enough. Certainly enough to condemn him, if someone was to feel so inclined. But banding around terms like "paedophile" is as helpful as stating without evidence that someone is "a psychopath" or "schizophrenic".

As usual, we have the press and popular culture to thank for the bastardisation of a psychological term.


In the eyes of the law having sex without consent is rape, an adult having sex with a child makes them a peadophile...ergo he is a peadophile rapist however you try to dress it up.

[Samuel.]

He's served his time. There should be no issues.

The definition of a paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-adolescent children. A 12 year old is not necessarily pre-adolescent (some are, some aren't, puberty begins at different times) and therefore someone who is attracted to a 12 year old is not necessarily a paedophile. Illustratively: it's perfectly possible that a 12 year old might look 16, and that in that case, a 16 to 20 year old might find them physically attractive. It's then revealed that they are 12 - does that other person automatically "become a paedophile"? No, of course not. To put it bluntly; to know whether or not he's a paedophile, you would have to see a picture of the girl. If she is sexually developed, then he is NOT a paedophile. Full stop.

An adult actively, knowingly, pursuing sex with someone of that age is OBVIOUSLY morally abhorrent. This MUST be kept distinct, though, from bellowing "PAEDO" - because paedophilia is an abnormal psychological perversion. Branding someone who is not a paedophile as a paedophile isn't helpful.

Finally (and I find myself having to state this almost every time a case like this comes up) - "paedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable terms. There are paedophiles with self-restraint who have never harmed a child, and there are child molesters who are not necessarily paedophiles (though this is less common).

This is why the term "statutory rape" exists. There is a legal distinction. An adult having sex with a pre-pubescent child is a child molester in the eyes of the law. An adult having sex with an underage person who has reached sexual maturity is a statutory rapist. That distinction exists for the reasons outlined above; i.e. "they're NOT paedophiles".


What he is, however, is a convicted rapist and apparently a predatory one who preyed on someone young and vulnerable. This is bad enough. Certainly enough to condemn him, if someone was to feel so inclined. But banding around terms like "paedophile" is as helpful as stating without evidence that someone is "a psychopath" or "schizophrenic".

As usual, we have the press and popular culture to thank for the bastardisation of a psychological term.

:worship:

[Niamh.]

In the eyes of the law having sex without consent is rape, an adult having sex with a child makes them a peadophile...ergo he is a peadophile rapist however you try to dress it up.


Indeed.

[Northern Monkey]

This guy is obviously a sick bastard.But it is up to Jamie who he employs when it comes down to it.A very unwise decision imo though.People say that any publicity is good publicity,In this case i beg to differ.

[Z]

I just can't believe the focus in this thread... he gave the guy a job despite his past, not because of it? He's not bloody rewarding him, he's giving him a second chance!

[Ammi]

..I'm not sure how I feel about this...it's something that's hard not to feel 'emotional' about but it's not really about emotion..I haven't read the article or know any details of his case but he has been brought to justice for his crime and whether we agree with whatever sentence he got or not, the whole point of prison sentences etc is surely the possibility of 'rehabilitation' and for that to happen then part of that is to be given an opportunity by an employer in full knowing of what his past is...this must happen all the time or a lot and would surely have to happen for the prison/justice system to have a 'point'...so long as the job and the crime committed doesn't put that person in a position of trust with vulnerable people...it's just that we mostly don't know about it but that doesn't change that it's what has to happen and what does happen..someone has to give offenders a 'chance' otherwise they serve a sentence for a crime their whole lives...I guess it could be a 'worst' decision for Jamie because of the media attention it will bring or could be deemed as him, in being aware of this media attention..really wanting to 'stand up' for something he truly believes ....but yeah, hard for people who are directly involved....

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

..I'm not sure how I feel about this...it's something that's hard not to feel 'emotional' about but it's not really about emotion..I haven't read the article or know any details of his case but he has been brought to justice for his crime and whether we agree with whatever sentence he got or not, the whole point of prison sentences etc is surely the possibility of 'rehabilitation' and for that to happen then part of that is to be given an opportunity by an employer in full knowing of what his past is...this must happen all the time or a lot and would surely have to happen for the prison/justice system to have a 'point'...so long as the job and the crime committed doesn't put that person in a position of trust with vulnerable people...it's just that we mostly don't know about it but that doesn't change that it's what has to happen and what does happen..someone has to give offenders a 'chance' otherwise they serve a sentence for a crime their whole lives...I guess it could be a 'worst' decision for Jamie because of the media attention it will bring or could be deemed as him, in being aware of this media attention..really wanting to 'stand up' for something he truly believes ....but yeah, hard for people who are directly involved....
But that's how it should be. Otherwise every criminal will be like Oh let me just do the crime then. I'll be in the prison rent free, tax free for a few years then go back out and get a job. Good stuff.

People that offend need to know that as soon as they offend that's it, it's over you'll pay for it somehow the rest of your life otherwise what's the point of the law it's just pointless then if everyone gets a pat on the back afterwards.

And the thing about the criminals serving a sentence all their lives, who cares, their victims might serve a sentence all their lives.

I'm just worried about human rights getting a bit too soft when it concerns criminals now. God forbid if something happens to me or my family one day, is this what I can look forward to then? Pft.


The headline on dailymail is the victim of that footballer getting threats while the footballer is getting ready for a party and possibly going back to high paying job. Awful

[Josy]

I just can't believe the focus in this thread... he gave the guy a job despite his past, not because of it? He's not bloody rewarding him, he's giving him a second chance!

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

And he was only 19 as well. If it's psychological as they claim then he can't be fixed. Watch out Jamie.:shrug:

[Josy]

He's served his time. There should be no issues.



:worship:

There should be no issues?

There will always be issues with criminals of this type throughout their entire life and rightly so, just because they have served a jail term does not mean they are rehabilitated there is always the risk of them reoffending, there are issues with parents worrying if their child is safe around them for a start, there are issues about where criminals like this will be housed after leaving prison, for Jamie and his restaurants or any other employer that gives these people a chance there will be issues of customers not wanting to be associated in any way with the business due to fearing the safety of their children and then others will stop going there just to make a point.

Saying there should be no issues is pointless because the issue of the crime they committed will always be there.

[user104658]

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.
It doesn't. "paedophile" is not a legal term. "convicted paedophile" is a media buzz term. There is no such thing. There are convicted child molesters, people convicted of making or storing indecent images of children, there are convicted rapists, convicted statutory rapists, a myriad of other convicted perverts, but "convicted paedophile" simply isn't a thing because it is meaningless: paedophilia is not and cannot be a crime until the urges are acted upon, at which point the perpetrator becomes a child rapist or child molester (or child pornographer).

It is a psychological term. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children. Someone who is attracted to teens after the onset of puberty, but not before, may be messed up, morally abhorrent, a scumbag, a predator, a danger to society, any of these things... But they are not a paedophile. It's not a debate, it's a fact, whether you want it to be or not :/.

Please don't think that this is in any way a defence of this man, or any other person convicted of a sexual offense, or of actual paedophiles... I'm not defending or making excuses for anyone. It just annoys me (as someone with a degree in psychology) when people get these things completely wrong.

Calling non-paedophiles paedophiles is stupid, and damaging, when actual paedophiles exist. The best way to keep society safe from anyone with any mental disorder is to understand it ACCURATELY and take appropriate measures. Muddying the waters with blanket terms might make people feel better in their rants and rages but it doesn't help anyone else. At all.

[Kyle]

Just a shame there is no reformation for the poor 12 year old girl who will very much have to live with the events she had forced upon her.

If a rapist wants to reform themselves they should be offered a gun with one bullet and a secure room where they can be politely asked to redeem themselves. I know I couldn't live with the shame if I did such a thing.

[Kizzy]

It doesn't. "paedophile" is not a legal term. "convicted paedophile" is a media buzz term. There is no such thing. There are convicted child molesters, people convicted of making or storing indecent images of children, there are convicted rapists, convicted statutory rapists, a myriad of other convicted perverts, but "convicted paedophile" simply isn't a thing because it is meaningless: paedophilia is not and cannot be a crime until the urges are acted upon, at which point the perpetrator becomes a child rapist or child molester (or child pornographer).

It is a psychological term. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to pre pubescent children. Someone who is attracted to teens after the onset of puberty, but not before, may be messed up, morally abhorrent, a scumbag, a predator, a danger to society, any of these things... But they are not a paedophile. It's not a debate, it's a fact, whether you want it to be or not :/.

Please don't think that this is in any way a defence of this man, or any other person convicted of a sexual offense, or of actual paedophiles... I'm not defending or making excuses for anyone. It just annoys me (as someone with a degree in psychology) when people get these things completely wrong.

Calling non-paedophiles paedophiles is stupid, and damaging, when actual paedophiles exist. The best way to keep society safe from anyone with any mental disorder is to understand it ACCURATELY and take appropriate measures. Muddying the waters with blanket terms might make people feel better in their rants and rages but it doesn't help anyone else. At all.

Ok, he's not a peadophile... just a child molesting rapist. Glad we cleared that up.

[Ammi]

But that's how it should be. Otherwise every criminal will be like Oh let me just do the crime then. I'll be in the prison rent free, tax free for a few years then go back out and get a job. Good stuff.

People that offend need to know that as soon as they offend that's it, it's over you'll pay for it somehow the rest of your life otherwise what's the point of the law it's just pointless then if everyone gets a pat on the back afterwards.

And the thing about the criminals serving a sentence all their lives, who cares, their victims might serve a sentence all their lives.

I'm just worried about human rights getting a bit too soft when it concerns criminals now. God forbid if something happens to me or my family one day, is this what I can look forward to then? Pft.


The headline on dailymail is the victim of that footballer getting threats while the footballer is getting ready for a party and possibly going back to high paying job. Awful



I feel the same about anyone who hurts children in any way at all as you do, CeeCee ... but through my own personal experiences I just don’t think that I can say ‘every criminal in a ‘one size fits all crimes’ type thing..maybe I’m wrong in my thinking with this and tbh, I haven’t even read the article but with this I do think age could be of relevance..not in a way that his crime was any less or awful because of course it wasn’t and he has been brought to justice for it... but in that being little more than adult age himself, I just don’t necessarily think this is definitely something that is a ‘bad’ in him but could have been something bad that he did because of his own childhood/because of his own experiences/situation and environment and things that he couldn’t help and a possibility that there was no positive nurturing in his life and nothing except negatives and bad stuff....I don’t think that it’s necessarily that there was an ‘attraction’ there to the victim or that he is as such a ‘paedophile’/something that he can’t change..?.....it is a really difficult one I know because this is something which will most probably have far lasting effects on the victim so then they are ‘punished for their whole lives..’ and that’s not fair/why shouldn't he be as well....?...but my feelings are that, those effects and what he has done has sadly already happened and nothing is ever going to change that...maybe what he has needed in his life..what he has never had is just for one person to ‘believe in him’ like Jamie is doing...and maybe that one chance will make the whole difference between him being a repeat offender or being rehabilitated after what he did and it never happening again ..?...if that happened then surely for everyone..the fact that he would never create another victim in his life would be the much better outcome for everyone and ‘society as a whole’...my heart breaks for the victim, but nothing now will ever change what he did to her...but there are many ‘victims’ in life in many different ways, young people who you feel that their whole life is almost ‘mapped out’ for them before it barely starts and through no fault of their own either...and sometimes, with a ‘chance’ for some people, they could possibly change that course and never hurt anyone ever again....and yeah, I know that some people re-offend and don't deserve any more chances if they've already been given one... but maybe there are lots that don't repeat offend because that chance and that belief was something that changed their lives and so will change the lives of others/any 'potential victims'...I mean, we don't know if 'the system' and rehabilitation works for some and to what extent unless it's given the chance to work....and it's not that it doesn't happen all the time anyway in cases we don't ever know about...as I say, I haven't read the article so I'm presuming that he's not a multiple offender but I do believe with child abuse, that offenders can be victims themselves and behaviour patterns can be changed ..rather than it necessarily be something 'bad that's in them' that can't ever be changed and a part of that will be 'giving them a chance/giving them an environment of 'belief' and something positive....

[user104658]

Ok, he's not a peadophile... just a child molesting rapist. Glad we cleared that up.
"Just" a predatory rapist who happened to prey on someone very young, is more likely. I've looked at several articles on this and I can't find anywhere what he was actually charged with, unfortunately, but I highly doubt he was charged with child molestation. Not if he's out this soon.

Again, not defending him, and I don't think he SHOULD be out this soon. Being a rapist who targeted someone young and vulnerable is bad enough to be locked up for a long time, IMO. But I still maintain that the distinction is an important one.

[Z]

The focus on his crime took place in the discussion so much because there was posts in here claiming this guy wasn't a paedophile.

I couldn't care any less how much anyone tries to dress it up or make excuses about it, ANY ADULT that is attracted to a 12 year old CHILD is a paedophile in my eyes regardless of how much anyone tries to deny it and I'm just glad that the law see's it that way too.

Okay, but I don't think that should dictate that he can never work ever again. Being a chef is pretty tough going, the hours are insane and I think it's positive that he's been given an opportunity to turn his life around and work hard at something than just serving his sentence and having his life be over before he's even 30 years old. I mean what would people rather he did? He's not going to come into direct contact with children being a chef so I don't really see the relevance; what he did wasn't good but he was punished and now he's moving on with his life. :shrug:

[Tom4784]

But that's how it should be. Otherwise every criminal will be like Oh let me just do the crime then. I'll be in the prison rent free, tax free for a few years then go back out and get a job. Good stuff.

People that offend need to know that as soon as they offend that's it, it's over you'll pay for it somehow the rest of your life otherwise what's the point of the law it's just pointless then if everyone gets a pat on the back afterwards.

And the thing about the criminals serving a sentence all their lives, who cares, their victims might serve a sentence all their lives.

I'm just worried about human rights getting a bit too soft when it concerns criminals now. God forbid if something happens to me or my family one day, is this what I can look forward to then? Pft.


The headline on dailymail is the victim of that footballer getting threats while the footballer is getting ready for a party and possibly going back to high paying job. Awful

I think it's a bit ignorant to make out that prison is like some sort of Haven holiday camp. I probably couldn't deal with being imprisoned very well and I reckon a lot of people on this board wouldn't either.

As for the blue paragraph, what the hell do you propose ex cons do if 'it's all over for them' if they offend? If reformation isn't an option then what can they do? Would you be happy for them to live on benefits all their lives, draining the budget just to appease your overactive sense of righteousness?

A sentence is a sentence for a reason, you do your time and then you try to go back to being a functioning member of society. Why would you want to deny someone that chance out of pure malice when you're just forcing them back into a situation where they might go back to old habits when they wouldn't have needed to if they were given a chance to reform? Attitudes like yours plays a big part in why we have so many repeat offenders of all sorts of crimes, why should anyone ever bother learning from their mistakes and bettering themselves for it when people like you are content to casting them aside in a meaningless show of self righteousness?

[user104658]

A sentence is a sentence for a reason, you do your time and then you try to go back to being a functioning member of society. Why would you want to deny someone that chance out of pure malice when you're just forcing them back into a situation where they might go back to old habits when they wouldn't have needed to if they were given a chance to reform? Attitudes like yours plays a big part in why we have so many repeat offenders of all sorts of crimes, why should anyone ever bother learning from their mistakes and bettering themselves for it when people like you are content to casting them aside in a meaningless show of self righteousness?

Indeed; by creating pariahs of people with criminal records, all you do is ensure that those people have no real choice but to turn to crime to survive. On top of that, because they FEEL like outcasts from society, they have less social responsibility, and they feel less guilt about acting out of pure self-interest.

A self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Kizzy]

Indeed; by creating pariahs of people with criminal records, all you do is ensure that those people have no real choice but to turn to crime to survive. On top of that, because they FEEL like outcasts from society, they have less social responsibility, and they feel less guilt about acting out of pure self-interest.

A self-fulfilling prophesy.

Spare the sociology lecture please, It does stick in my craw the fact that this 'man' may have honed his skills whilst at her majesties pleasure, then walked out into this fantastic opportunity.
Nobody is suggesting he never work again, but this is for me smacks of some odd ill thought out publicity stunt to get media attention for jamies restaurant.

[user104658]

Spare the sociology lecture please, It does stick in my craw the fact that this 'man' may have honed his skills whilst at her majesties pleasure, then walked out into this fantastic opportunity.
Nobody is suggesting he never work again, but this is for me smacks of some odd ill thought out publicity stunt to get media attention for jamies restaurant.
I didn't quote and wasn't "lecturing" you, Kizzy, I was quoting and agreeing with Dezzy who was quoting a suggestion that anyone who breaks the law must "pay for the rest of their lives".

I know your names are similar so I understand the confusion.

For what it's worth, it actually does irk me, slightly, that prisoners get to learn skills and trades "for free" that aren't easy to access for young people in everyday life either through lack of places or simply because they can't afford the tuition fees. It seems completely wrong that someone can go to jail for 5 years and come out more skilled and more employable (often with the possibility of self employment) than someone who has been slogging away in something low paid like a retail job for 5 years. I'm just not sure what the alternative is.

[Ammi]

I didn't quote and wasn't "lecturing" you, Kizzy, I was quoting and agreeing with Dezzy who was quoting a suggestion that anyone who breaks the law must "pay for the rest of their lives".

I know your names are similar so I understand the confusion.

For what it's worth, it actually does irk me, slightly, that prisoners get to learn skills and trades "for free" that aren't easy to access for young people in everyday life either through lack of places or simply because they can't afford the tuition fees. It seems completely wrong that someone can go to jail for 5 years and come out more skilled and more employable (often with the possibility of self employment) than someone who has been slogging away in something low paid like a retail job for 5 years. I'm just not sure what the alternative is.

..yeah I do understand that as well, TS...but then, it's like you say..what is the alternative..?..because part of rehabilitation is in learning those skills and feeling a 'worth' which will help create self belief and a positive in their life... I think one of the things for me here and what I would like to see is prison sentences in entirety being served for crimes ...not the '5 years meaning 2 years in reality' etc...

[user104658]

..yeah I do understand that as well, TS...but then, it's like you say..what is the alternative..?..because part of rehabilitation is in learning those skills and feeling a 'worth' which will help create self belief and a positive in their life... I think one of the things for me here and what I would like to see is prison sentences in entirety being served for crimes ...not the '5 years meaning 2 years in reality' etc...

I think ultimately the solution has to be that they can gain these skills and that worth in prison - the balance needs to be brought from the positive side for everyone else, i.e. affordable access to these skills and training for ALL young people, right up to the age of 30. There have been a lot of programmes / apprenticeships set up to help post-school teenagers and people in their early 20's to gain a skill or a trade but that doesn't go far enough... there are many perfectly capable people in their mid to late 20's and even early 30's (still young!) who need those opportunities too. Basically, it should be made "fair" by providing similar opportunities to everyone, rather than by removing the opportunities from prisons.

We're a long, long way from anything like that happening, though.

I do agree about sentencing though. A sentence should be what it is - you get 5 years, if you keep clean in prison you get out in 5 years, to the day. Time should be added ON for any criminal activity / violence perpetrated whilst in prison... rather than time taken off for "good behaviour". The only time taken off a sentence should be for time served on remand during a trial.

[Kizzy]

I didn't quote and wasn't "lecturing" you, Kizzy, I was quoting and agreeing with Dezzy who was quoting a suggestion that anyone who breaks the law must "pay for the rest of their lives".

I know your names are similar so I understand the confusion.

For what it's worth, it actually does irk me, slightly, that prisoners get to learn skills and trades "for free" that aren't easy to access for young people in everyday life either through lack of places or simply because they can't afford the tuition fees. It seems completely wrong that someone can go to jail for 5 years and come out more skilled and more employable (often with the possibility of self employment) than someone who has been slogging away in something low paid like a retail job for 5 years. I'm just not sure what the alternative is.

I was fully aware you weren't speaking to me personally, there was no confusion.
My response was to the concept of offenders being treated like outcasts this hasn't been the case for many years since the rehabilitation of offenders act 1974.

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

What counts as a spent conviction
Convictions with a sentence of 4 years or less will become spent after a certain period of time. This is known as a ‘rehabilitation period’. Its length depends on how severe the penalty was.

Rehabilitation periods

Custodial sentence Rehabilitation period (from end of sentence)
0 - 6 months 2 years
6 - 30 months 4 years
30 months - 4 years 7 years
more than 4 years never

Therefore if he comes out at 23 fully trained then by 30 the offence is wiped and he no longer has to declare it to employers anyway.