You should not have hired him at all

The leader of the church that knowingly hired a convicted paedophile as its musical director today conceded that it had been a mistake. But I'm still not convinced that the church has learned its lesson.

The leader said he would be requiring anyone hired to work with children in the church to have a police check.

While this is a welcome move, a police check wouldn't have changed anything in this case, would it? You knew his past when you hired him.

[He said] the church should have insisted that Mr. Darrell undergo counselling while working as a musical director.

No. You should not have hired Mr. Darrell at all.

I'm all for giving people a second chance, even paedophiles, but known molestors should never again be allowed to work with children. The risk is just too great.

Comments

[Full Fullish on 19.08.05 at 14:08]

I absolutely agree with you on this one Phillip. What kind of moron would hire someone like this given his past, and then throw him into a situation where he's tempted to follow familiar habbits. Surely they've heard the story of the Fox and the Scorpion.

I know that some may argue that well, you see alcoholics becoming bartenders and still resisting the temptation to drink. My rebuttal would be that alcoholics only harm themselves and do not put others in harm with their habbit (unless they drive of course). Would you allow a known murder to work at a gun range?

What kind of a fool is this Church leader anyways? He should be partially held responsible for his actions.

[Better Change on 19.08.05 at 14:53]

The final insult is where the chuch elder said he 'had hoped God would step in and cure him' or some such idiotic rubbish.

Using God as an excuse like this is disgusting in the extreme.

[SmokingGun on 19.08.05 at 15:02]

I know this is a touchy subject and all, but if you know there' a fox hanging by the chicken coop and you deliberately leave the door open.....you're as guilty as the fox.

[Tiger Bay on 19.08.05 at 15:26]

A question for the lurking lawyers: are there potential grounds for the DPP to consider pressing charges against the church/representatives in this case?

[Raptor on 19.08.05 at 15:37]

Just staggering ignorance of paedophilia. And there's no excuse for it. All it takes is some common sense. You'd have to be brain dead to think that was a safe situation.

[Bill Cook on 19.08.05 at 16:39]

What would you say if you knew that in by gone yrs sexual predators if not neccessarily paeodophiles were allowed in to our correction institutions and left to give lessons in art or other subjects unsupervised, Not sure that is still the case but would not be surprised.

If you are an ICON you are often exempt from the usual rules.

And more to the point if you tried to apply the rules you not the offender would suffer as only a lowly civil servant whose face does not fit is only too aware !

[jake on 19.08.05 at 18:09]

Let's see.

We know he has been deported from the US for sexual assualt involving a child.

We know that on three or four occasions he was convicted of sexually assaulting children.

We know this.

And THEN we hire him to work with the choir and tell him not to do it again. "Stay away from the girls"

He does. He molests a boy.

Questions:

1. Is there a duty of care when a child is placed in your custody?

2. (Assuming 1. above is yes) Does knowingly hiring a child molestor to watch children constitute a breach of that duty? Does hiring a child molestor without doing a background check constitute recklessness amounting to negligence?

3. Did the victim suffer damage?

4. Was the damage caused by the actions in 2. above?

5. What value can we place on the damage suffered by the victim?

[SmokingGun on 19.08.05 at 18:46]

Truth is Jake we should all feel damaged. The fact that because someone in authority made a decision to hire this person knowing full well their history, wether they expected another occurence or not, has damaged our trust in that authority.
This applies to the hiring of the new tourism director as much. In his history he ripped off Bermuda's tax-payers by not paying his taxes over an extended period of time without trying to re-imburse, could we now find out he ends up embezzling?
The police recognise this and are willing to do extensive back ground checks on people. What a wonderful precedent these guys have set for us.

[Bill Cook on 19.08.05 at 19:20]

In case A we know he was convicted Molester and in case B we know he is a Thief

Why should we be surprised if A molests and B continues his thieving ways ?