EMBC and Sparklebox

[GrumbleDook]

As mentioned in the YHGfL forum the statement from EMBC on this matter is available at embc take action to Block "SparkleBox" along with other RBCs and Local Authorities

 

Northamptonshire has now sent out an email to all heads on this matter.

[kaphc]

Wow! All those lovely play-doh activities and sign-in sheets are gone!

 

Who'd have thought it? Bit of a scandal!

[bossman]

When are the authorities gonna wise up that once a sex offender always a sex offender they are the most likely group in society to re-offend and keep re-offending they should just put these predetors out of their misery.

 

There is no excuse for it :-(

[pete]

Netlinc (Lincolnshire) are currently not blocking or advising those running their own filtering to block:

 

Dear Staff,

 

You may be aware that a number of local authorities, and a number of regional broadband consortia have blocked access to an educational resource which is widely used called Sparklebox. Currently, the reasons given for the widespread blocking are unsubstantiated by any authoritative body, and are therefore based on hearsay and speculation.

 

Within Lincolnshire, this online resource is accessed approximately a quarter of a million times each week. Therefore any block to this resource could be detrimental to the daily curriculum. There is also the legal question of blocking legitimate educational sites based on unsubstantiated informatiion.

 

Becta are taking appropriate action to advise nationally, quote "This matter is in hand with the appropriate authorities and a statement will be made when we have legal clearance to do so" unquote.

 

Therefore, Lincolnshire County Council will not be blocking this resource until such time formal information is received that there is an issue of security or safeguarding, or that Becta have formally advised to block the resource.

 

Please note, if advice is received to block the resource, this will be carried out immediately. I will inform you as soon as practically possible that this has been done.

 

Kind Regards

[Edu-IT]

Therefore, Lincolnshire County Council will not be blocking this resource until such time formal information is received that there is an issue of security or safeguarding

Seems like this has already been determined if CEOP are recommending it be blocked.

[laserblazer]

Worcestershire has blocked it.

[stevenlong1985]

BGFL has blocked it too

[marvin]

Blocked in Leicester!

[sparkeh]

Blocked in Leicester!

 

Yes its blocked across the whole of the embc.

[jamesreedersmith]

But not in lincolnshire - which is in the EMBC

[sparkeh]

But not in lincolnshire - which is in the EMBC

 

Ah yes, if I am correct Lincs doesn't work quite the same as the other embc LAs does it?

[GrumbleDook]

In general Lincolnshire take a feed from EMBC but manage their own services centrally. When talking about EMBC, Lincolnshire members should go to Lincolnshire CC for information.

[PiqueABoo]

When are the authorities gonna wise up that once a sex offender always a sex offender they are the most likely group in society to re-offend and keep re-offending they should just put these predetors out of their misery.

 

I did jury service on an "interesting" predatory paedophile case. Another one had recently been too much national "news" for much too long, so I expected to be amongst a hysterical lynch mob but everyone appeared to be extremely objective i.e. when making decisions that would definitely affect a real person, they seemed to take it very, very seriously indeed. It took years for my natural cynicism about the Great British public to recover.

 

Anyway, we unanimously settled on guilty re. the charge that mattered and afterwards (because you were not allowed to know before) learnt they were a repeat offender. That was a consolation given our verdict and the likely sentence i.e. the probability we were right went up a bit more.

 

Later I wondered enough to go looking, and the numbers I found said the chances of a sex offender (which covers a wide variety of things) being convicted for a second sexual offence was apparently about 1 in 4. The highest for a specific offence was 1 in 3. Of course some might not get caught the next time, but it seems reasonable to guess at a worst case of 1 in 2 do NOT reoffend.

 

So if we put two first offenders in front of you with some kind of big red button for you to press, which one(s) are you going to put "out of their misery"? And what would pushing that button make you? Or is this just something you just want other people i.e. the "authorities", to do for you?

 

[if anyone's got some better recent numbers then please share. Not that you'll find anything meaningful re. this thread's specific and relatively new first offence until another decade or two has passed.]

[LeMarchand]

I did jury service on an "interesting" predatory paedophile case. Another one had recently been too much national "news" for much too long, so I expected to be amongst a hysterical lynch mob but everyone appeared to be extremely objective i.e. when making decisions that would definitely affect a real person, they seemed to take it very, very seriously indeed. It took years for my natural cynicism about the Great British public to recover.

 

My experience was the opposite: I was none-too-convinced that the accused was guilty of more than stupidity, but everyone else was all for castrating him.

 

Many of the same people wanted to let a cocaine smuggler walk as "his shoes were well polished".

[PiqueABoo]

My experience was the opposite: I was none-too-convinced that the accused was guilty of more than stupidity, but everyone else was all for castrating him.

 

Maybe I just got lucky with my definitely random walks-of-life lot then.

 

Many of the same people wanted to let a cocaine smuggler walk as "his shoes were well polished".

 

OTOH I think you got unlucky.

[GrumbleDook]

Part of the problem with all this is how some people view sex offenders. As with all offences trying to understand the mindset of why the person has committed the offence (whether as direct contact such as sexual assaults, grooming or trafficking or indirect contact such as downloading materials) is often pointless for the general public. Yes, there is a certain re-offending rate which is monitored and used to decided sections of sentencing for things like the register and time spent in custody.

 

We accept the the rehabilitation of offenders is something that is laudable in for majority of criminal activities but when it comes to the sex offenders register then we accept that we need to keep closer control of people.

 

The grey area comes when you are talking about 'access to children' and 'working with children'. In this case the site is geared towards teachers using resources, but the concern is that the site will be accessed also be children, pictures may be shared, online communities would give access to direct contact to children.

 

We also have a thing called innocent until proven guilty, but within restrictions on the register you can do a fair bit to limit the chances of re-offending.

 

There are also those that have the work to examine what has happened, how it can be dealt with and how we can stop it from happening again. This brings them in close contact with offenders on the register and I trust to their judgement (as professionals) about what we should do. In this case (via the announcement from CEOP) they have said that the site should be treated with extreme caution due to the owner, they would suggest that it isn't used for the foreseeable future and that if an individual person / school still wants to use it then this is why it is risky.

 

Unfortunately it took time to investigate all of this and was confused because of earlier decisions (at appears to me) so yes ... the message may not have gotten out as quickly as some would like. In Northants we are reviewing it via the Local Safeguarding Children's Board and it will probably be discussed nationally again anyway. In the meanwhile, I will trust to CEOP and their team as they are the professionals in this matter.

 

All the above ... a mixture of personal opinion / experience and how we are working with it in Northants.

[box_l]

herefordshire blocked too.

 

edit: primarys only blocked by the council, high schools will need to configure their own block lists

Edited January 8, 2010 by box_l
update

[apoth0r]

Just had to let a teacher know of the situation as they requested an 'unblock'.

 

Thanks for the information

[titch]

Also blocked in Hampshire

[AyatollahPies]

Just had to let a teacher know of the situation as they requested an 'unblock'.

 

Thanks for the information

 

How did said teacher react to the allegations?

[synaesthesia]

bit past allegations now though :|

 

So far all my schools have been very upset to lose such a valuable resource and the heads have pretty much all left it to the discretion of the individual staff as to whether they continue using the resources at home. I have put my foot down though and insisted they do not install the toolbar, as by doing so they would be directly putting money into the pocket of a sex offender. I'm not one for beating about the bush but this is such a delicate and horrible situation to have to handle it typically boils down to the obvious safety issues close to hand.

Are we putting our children in danger

Are we putting any other children in danger

Are we risking any possibly sensitive information (yes, hence toolbar removal and blockage)

The resources as already discussed are damned useful - I'm very thankful for the list EMBC provided for alternatives as I wasn't aware of a couple despite a good google search before christmas. Would the children therefore be losing out if these resources were not used?

 

Most primary schools around here are tightly staffed, some more so than others, and time is at a premium - such time as to make these resources themselves, which IMO is a lost art.

I've actually made a suggestion to one of my schools that perhaps it might be an opportunity to get the kids involved some more, combining curriculum such as art/D&T or whatever it's called these days with whatever subject they're creating these resources for. It's amazing what you can knock up in Paint or Colour Magic, and some of the kids are naturally talented at that. This has been taken on board and hopefully will have a good result in the near future.

 

I'm more than a little hopeful that being fully aware of the potential of this website it may be taken over by someone somehow - I don't know how that would work out with copyright, IP etc etc but it would appear to make sense. Maybe the business model might work for someone else to start fresh - hell, I've thought about it myself. But then again it's just a convenience, where most of the stuff can easily be made by teachers or children.

 

Sorry, thinking out loud a little bit here. Gauging the response from you folks, TES forums, even the "I Love Sparklebox" facebook group and importantly school staff it's easy to see the effect this is having and a natural willingness to move forward regardless. I know it hits home when some schools are taking the news in a manner you'd expect if their irreplaceable head teacher was hit by a snow plough :|

[glennda]

not blocked in west sussex, which probly means its not blocked on the lgfl as they are on same network

[PiqueABoo]

trying to understand the mindset of why the person has committed the offence is often pointless for the general public

 

Who wants to do that in this thread? I'd say the main problem is the "general public's" mindset towards this area which, if it belonged to an individual, would likely see them sectioned. Amongst other things it's seriously, disturbingly voyeuristic (because those tabloids tastelessly raking over details, day after day after day, sell) and insanely contradictory e.g. the complicity in the increasing sexualisation of young children.

 

We accept the the rehabilitation of offenders is something that is laudable in for majority of criminal activities but when it comes to the sex offenders register then we accept that we need to keep closer control of people.

 

I couldn't possibly accept that in isolation and it beggars (my) belief that so many people are apparently content to do so. As an example:

 

* Person A is convicted for possession of indecent pictures downloaded from the net etc. Yes I appreciate the "contribute to actual harm" argument, but they didn't directly harm a child. They go on the register.

 

* Person B is convicted for directly harming a child in a non-sexual way e.g. violent or other abuse.

 

So what happens in the second case? How different are the recividism rates? Do they go on a register? If so, are there notification requirements? Why aren't people at least as interested in this then? I know some of the answers, but only vaguely because the sexual stuff tends to eclipse and push all the rest to one side and it's a lot harder to find out - that mindset strikes again. Sadly, and that's very sadly, I don't think we're ever going to get very far with any of this until the witch hunt mentality is superseded by a rational, calm approach that permits more open, honest debate. Who knows, maybe next millenium..

 

In the meanwhile, I will trust to CEOP and their team as they are the professionals in this matter.

 

From where I'm sitting, devoid of any other information, CEOP have:

 

a) Confirmed the director sex offence thing. Although we didn't need that because SWGfL wouldn't have published (internally or externally) something so defamatory unless they knew it was true.

 

b) Essentially said they support LAs/schools blocking the site unless those LAs/schools are happy it's not a threat. Which is consequence-free advice anyone could give and arguably makes perfect sense for **any** site on the net.

 

You can start reading things between the lines, and if you like imagine some forum there is a hotbed of Machiavellian child molesters, but I'm also perfectly happy to assume CEOP are professionals so between the investigation they mentioned and the more general scrutiny that site's doubtless under, I'll stand by my comments on that other thread.

 

--

Honesty is what troubles me in all of this: If I'm honest I think I've recently read a bunch of patronising, specious artificial crap in those early (and some current) LA statements, several also with that witless safety-in-numbers "other LAs have done it too" stuff which just goes to show how little history teaches some people.

 

If I ran the universe then I'd have waited until it could be published and the message would have simply been: "[facts about director] + Under the circumstances we have currently decided it is inappropriate for an organisation of our nature to continue to allow access to the site." And having just looked I'm delighted to say that is pretty much what my LA grid folk have just said albeit with a teensy bit of innocuous padding.

 

::sorry folks - shutting up now::

[synaesthesia]

can't say I blame you Piq - it's a subject close to many peoples heart and one that's going to cause controversy for a while to come.

[GrumbleDook]

* Person A is convicted for possession of indecent pictures downloaded from the net etc. Yes I appreciate the "contribute to actual harm" argument, but they didn't directly harm a child. They go on the register.

 

* Person B is convicted for directly harming a child in a non-sexual way e.g. violent or other abuse.

 

So what happens in the second case? How different are the recividism rates? Do they go on a register? If so, are there notification requirements? Why aren't people at least as interested in this then? I know some of the answers, but only vaguely because the sexual stuff tends to eclipse and push all the rest to one side and it's a lot harder to find out - that mindset strikes again. Sadly, and that's very sadly, I don't think we're ever going to get very far with any of this until the witch hunt mentality is superseded by a rational, calm approach that permits more open, honest debate. Who knows, maybe next millennium..

 

Psychologically Person A is a very broad spectrum. One extreme you have a person who has downloaded one item, caught first time, but is curious. The other extreme is the person who is a repeat downloader / sharer and uses the materials as sexual stimulation. The repeated viewing of materials in conjunction with sexual acts lowers the 'acceptability' barrier ... and the lower it goes the closer the person is to taking part in direct activity themselves. At this point the closeness of person A and Person B is very close. You cannot take Person A and Person B as vastly separate. It can be taken on a case by case basis and this is why you get the variety of sentences or amount of time on the register.

 

The hardest thing to deal with is when Person A says 'but I never touched a kid!' ... but they thought about it ... they were stimulated by it ... is that as bad as actually doing it? This is why the offences were changed to include pseudo-images of children ... as this has also been shown to lower the barrier of acceptability.

 

Witch hunts ... yep, fully agree with you on the idiocy of the media when it comes to keeping the general public ill-informed. It seems taboo to talk about the psychological profiling of sex offenders when it is children, but it makes good drama / writing when it is about sexual offences against adults (Silence of the Lambs?)

 

In this case there are a number of unknown areas that still require to be investigated. Supposedly sparklebox has staff, but none appear to have come forward. The person involved has not released any more information about the site either ... a good precis of the whole shebang is available at Sparklebox - BrendenisTeaching.com but as mentioned previously ... if there is more info I will update things.