Jamie Oliver hired a potato

[Sutekh]

So Jamie Oliver hired a convicted child rapist as a chef, saying he's "served his time"

the guy served four years - does he really think that is adequate?

Deluded amoral middle class piece of shit... absolutely typical of the "anything I do is ok because I'm me" home counties toff mentality

I will enjoy watching his career die a death after this

[Dra508]

So Jamie Oliver hired a convicted child rapist as a chef, saying he's "served his time"

the guy served four years - does he really think that is adequate?

Deluded amoral middle class piece of shit... absolutely typical of the "anything I do is ok because I'm me" home counties toff mentality

I will enjoy watching his career die a death after this

What's the middle class got to do with it?

He annoys me already. This news doesn't help.

[Sutekh]

It's my belief that a lot of people amongst the post Thatcher middle classes in the UK are raised with a sense of self entitlement and sense of duty towards making money, meaning they do things like hire paedophiles to work in their businesses and think it's OK - and also think that everyone else will probably be cool with it if they just offer a limp justification, that's how far gone they are

[allegro]

It's my belief that a lot of people amongst the post Thatcher middle classes in the UK are raised with a sense of self entitlement and sense of duty towards making money, meaning they do things like hire paedophiles to work in their businesses and think it's OK - and also think that everyone else will probably be cool with it if they just offer a limp justification, that's how far gone they are
But you don't honestly think that Jamie Oliver is currently middle class, do you (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-celebrity-chefs/jamie-oliver-net-worth/)? I don't think many "middle class" people would think that child molesters are okay. However, I am also of the belief that if child molesters who have served their time can't be employed, then taxpayers will forever pay for them and wtf good will THAT do for society? This is, however, a poor PR move for Oliver. At some point, wealthy people become so far removed from reality that they don't think more than a few seconds beyond any decision. This program is for disadvantaged people. Oliver probably thinks this guy will somehow turn himself around through being a chef. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

[Sutekh]

Aye but I'm talking about the cultural values shared by much of the UK middle classes rather than economic status

Making a load of money later in life doesn't always erase the values you've been brought up with

It isn't about rich or poor it's about the values held within certain social strata

edit - btw I'm middle class but I was born poor, so I get to bag on everyone

[allegro]

Aye but I'm talking about the cultural values shared by much of the UK middle classes rather than economic status

Making a load of money later in life doesn't always erase the values you've been brought up with

It isn't about rich or poor it's about the values held within certain social strata

But "mlddle class" isn't a "social" strata, technically. It's a financial strata, defined mostly by income levels that can support education, housing, etc.

I've seen some interesting studies conducted in several countries defining "middle class" and it was interesting how people who were absolutely NOT middle class (were definitely upper class, or even lower class, economically) defined themselves as middle class, only because they didn't want to be associated with the upper class.

The upper class, also known as Old Money, is still a social class. Hence why Jews couldn't be members for hundreds of years, even though they had a lot more wealth. But I really don't believe that the middle class is a social class. There are really only three groups: The Haves, the Have Nots, and the people who bitch about both.

Oliver's behavior is much more typical of a Chef; Rock Star who is completely out of touch with reality, who thinks his "foundation" can rehabilitate a pedophile. He means well, perhaps, but this won't end well, for anybody? But blaming this on his "middle class values" is insulting to middle class people everywhere, and sounds like sour grapes on your part right now.

[Sutekh]

I'm a social scientist & in my field of work Middle Class is a well defined and widely accepted term of stratification

Just wondering - are you from the UK?

The upper class in in this country is the very rich or titled, the working class is low paid, usually not house owners, not graduates, low income and often manual labour or service industry employment

By Middle Class I mean professionals or managerial, uni edcuated, income between 30 & 60 pa, house owners etc

I do agree the lines are becoming blurred in the post thatcher era, but there's a still a section of society with a different lifestyle, values and prospects to those either side of them

[allegro]

I'm a social scientist & in my field of work Middle Class is a well defined and widely accepted term of stratification

Just wondering - are you from the UK?

The upper class in in this country is the very rich or titled, the working class is low paid, usually not house owners, not graduates, low income and often manual labour or service industry employment

By Middle Class I mean professionals or managerial, uni edcuated, income between 30 & 60 pa, house owners etc
Yes, we used to have a middle class in the U.S., we don't have one, anymore, LOL.

Anyway, this is drift. Are you a big follower of Chefs, in general? A foodie? This looks to be big news in the U.K., this Jamie Oliver story. Here in the U.S., we have lots of douchebag celebrity chefs, you can follow about 900 of them on Twitter and Instagram, and all of them are total dickheads and the dickier they are, the more people seem to love them. Even that asshole Gordon Ramsay's Hell's Kitchen show, which I never watch because he's a stereotypical screaming asshole celebrity rockstar chef.

"Chef" is a way for ordinary people to go from rags to riches. Tony Bourdain was a heroin addict who hung out with the Ramones in the 70s (http://www.thefix.com/content/anthony-bourdain-addicted-past91330).

[Sutekh]

I think what's happened on both sides of the pond is that the values and opportunities are beginning to overlap and the playing field is levelling out

Yep the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but the gulf of people in between who are doing OK seems to be getting bigger

I put this down (roughly) to the chicago school, Thatcher & Reagan etc.

[DigitalChaos]

So Jamie Oliver hired a convicted child rapist as a chef, saying he's "served his time"

the guy served four years - does he really think that is adequate?

Deluded amoral middle class piece of shit... absolutely typical of the "anything I do is ok because I'm me" home counties toff mentality

I will enjoy watching his career die a death after this

Just to play devils advocate... What is wrong with employing him? If 4 years jail time is inadequate, how does that problem fall on his employer and not the legal system? And what is the alternative for the employer? Instead of letting him work for a living, let the tax payers pay for him? This is a country with a large social safety net and this guy gets to use it if unemployed.

[Sutekh]

It's because he does not deserve a decent life, wage and career

If he's not working he's on welfare/benefits - fine. Honestly I would rather pay for him to live in squalor than afford him an opportunity to live a comfortable life on a professional wage, he does not deserve that opportunity.

The welfare doesn't last forever - eventually he will be handed a choice of either menial/unpaid work, or cessation of benefit

But yes the legal system is massively at fault, too often in these cases it's only the victim who gets the life sentence

[DigitalChaos]

It's because he does not deserve a decent life, wage and career

If he's not working he's on welfare/benefits - fine. Honestly I would rather pay for him to live in squalor than afford him an opportunity to live a comfortable life on a professional wage, he does not deserve that opportunity.

The welfare doesn't last forever - eventually he will be handed a choice of either menial/unpaid work, or cessation of benefit

But yes the legal system is massively at fault, too often in these cases it's only the victim who gets the life sentence

In the UK? I don't know the specifics on their benefits, but it does include free healthcare, housing, and some form of unemployment pay that I'm not sure runs out.

That's another thing with the whole "minimum guaranteed standard of living" thing that people push for. It includes situations like this.

But yea, this is on the legal system. I don't see why people would rather jump on some celebrity about it. Hell, if his employer wasn't a celebrity there wouldn't be any news coverage on it. So this is much more about a celebrity than it is about a pedophile being employed. Further, who the hell created this story and what is their motivation? There are a LOT of employed individuals who served their time for horrible crimes.... why is THIS the case that gets attention?

edit: after reading allegro's post, it's because this guy could make well above average pay when he is done being an apprentice. I guess that is why.

[Sutekh]

you get free healthcare no matter what... free housing only if you have co-dependants (kids or elderly or disabled, and exceptions are made for asylum seekers), unemployment runs out - trust me (I live here, I know the score - I'm not lying). If you are long term unemployed you get benefits, then unpaid work, then finally it gets cut off altogether and you will eventually end up homeless (In London we have veterans and disabled begging on the streets - it does not last forever)

At the end of the day if ANY employer did this I would be annoyed - the reason this has come to my attention is because the employer is in the public eye and the press scrutinise him, but just because the eye is on him more so than any other individual does not mean he is any less guilty and it is any less outrageous. Once again, I am not jumping on him purely because he is a celebrity, I am jumping on him because he is helping pure scum - the reason it has come to my attention is because he is a celebrity. Are you suggesting that I, or people in general don't really have anything against Paedos and they just want to bash a celeb? Seriously? Given the epidemic of child rape in society I might be inclined the agree with the latter but the former? Enough said

And even if that was the case, do you not still think he is wrong to take this guy on over other applicants who presumably haven't raped a child and ruined her whole life?

Why is it this case that gets attention when plenty of of ex-cons re-enter the job market without moral outrage? Aside from that fact that child-rape is leagues ahead of most other crimes in terms of pure evil (mate, what the fuck? obviously), It is worth noting that there is no evidence to suggest child rapists can be reformed - he is beyond redemption and therefore forgiveness and charity (except that which has to be rendered in lieu of the death penalty). This is one of the main things that means this case deserves extra hard treatment - thieves, drug dealers and murderers can be reformed - but even if they couldn't, are you telling me that thieves, all varieties of killer and dealers are less abhorrent than child-rapists? Surely it is self evident why this case is so much worse

I would ask you now - why does he deserve any leniency?

I'm wondering if the outrage I'm feeling is due to not understanding the true nature of your argument - please tell me what you think the morally right course of action is with regards to this individual. It seems to me like you're saying "no worse than any other criminal that has served his time, and people are only angry because his employer was a celebrity, whom people love to bash"

You say you're playing Devil's advocate - I hope so, and I appreciate such emotive issues must be subject to critical thinking - you have the floor!

[Sutekh]

Nobody has anything to say?

wow

[allegro]

What can you say? I don't know what else to suggest we do with a 19-yr-old who does this kind of thing. There are about 100 various UK news articles about this guy as if he's somehow public enemy number one, and there's zero news coverage, here. It's as if this guy was worse than Jack the Ripper, but I can't tell if he's a multiple offender. I don't know if this was an indication that he is a pathological child-rapist and is incapable of being rehabilitated or if he was in fact rehabilitated but, either way, as somebody in law, the point of the prison system isn't to simply punish but also to rehabilitate so that hopefully these people can become contributing members of society. If this isn't possible, then what else do we do with them? Firing squad? Shoot them into outer space? Soylent green? Fertilizer? We can't afford to support them while they smoke pot on the couch all day and we board them up in the house and keep them from the playgrounds. So we'll have to shoot them all the head and blow their brains out all over the place. Simple. *shrug*. Anyway, this is drift.

[DigitalChaos]

Sutekh - Did you read my edit?

But if you insist...
What other employed pedophiles has your country gone after with such intensity?
Why hasn't your country used all that energy to fix the legal punishment for that crime? Seems like they are only interested in calling out the celebrity over the matter.


And before my edit, it seemed like the underlying reason for this story may have had a lot more to do with someone who wanted bad press for Jamie Oliver and not so much about exposing pedophiles who happen to be employed.

[Sutekh]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) it's not drift, this is discussion of an issue which a headline raises, unless I'm mistaken this is a discussion forum not a headline aggregation service whereby we repost stories and no more is to be said on the matter
@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598)
yep it's disgusting and unjust that other nonces and nonce enablers haven't been subject to the media scrutiny - we can agree on that

Now what about

" There are a LOT of employed individuals who served their time for horrible crimes.... why is THIS the case that gets attention?"

We can go case by case and I'm sure we can agree on the revolting double standards within our society towards a myriad issues - but surely we can agree this sort of thing is beyond the pale? Why hasn't my country done more to effectively punish the offender?

If you really want my opinion - it's because rape and child rape are IMHO epidemic and we are in cultural denial, we think of these people as one in a million - but in my honest and informed opinion it's more like 1 in 20. How many people do you know who were abused as a child or raped as an adult? A lot, right? It's not the lightning strike phenomena our cultures seem to insist it is, is it? It's awful and I fucking hate it

When something like this gets exposed, why is your first instinct to say "well this awful shit only had a light thrown on it because of the status of someone involved" - eh?! given that there is no argument as to whether the abuse happened, why is the priority to decry the unfair attention the celeb has received rather than the very real and proven abuse that has taken place? Why effectively defend the abuser's employer rather than attack the abuser

[allegro]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) it's not drift, this is discussion of an issue which a headline raises, unless I'm mistaken this is a discussion forum not a headline aggregation service whereby we repost stories and no more is to be said on the matter
I dunno, it's a "General Headlines" thread so I think we are to stick to General Headlines and not get into the woods with each General Headline. When that happens, we should probably create a new thread, or the admins will split the thread. yeah, I'm a drift-hater. For me to get into the weeds of this discussion, i.e. the typical sentence for child sexual assault (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/) and the number of offenders, etc., then we'd definitely veer beyond the "General Headlines" category.

[DigitalChaos]

When something like this gets exposed, why is your first instinct to say "well this awful shit only had a light thrown on it because of the status of someone involved" - eh?! given that there is no argument as to whether the abuse happened, why is the priority to decry the unfair attention the celeb has received rather than the very real and proven abuse that has taken place? Why effectively defend the abuser's employer rather than attack the abuser

Because it allows the public to wash their hands of it after the problem is settled (or more likely when it exits the news cycle). People are attacking it for the wrong reasons. They need to figure out the true problem and then go after the root. The best that will happen is that guy loses his job, finds a new one with less publicity, and then the public can feel like they actually did something positive... when it was really just masturbatory distraction from the true problem. I mean, what is the public actually asking for here? Are they saying that Jamie Oliver should fire this guy or are they asking for a legal system where this guy would have received a more harsh punishment?

[allegro]

Because it allows the public to wash their hands of it after the problem is settled (or more likely when it exits the news cycle). People are attacking it for the wrong reasons. They need to figure out the true problem and then go after the root. The best that will happen is that guy loses his job, finds a new one with less publicity, and then the public can feel like they actually did something positive... when it was really just masturbatory distraction from the true problem. I mean, what is the public actually asking for here? Are they saying that Jamie Oliver should fire this guy or are they asking for a legal system where this guy would have received a more harsh punishment?
Actually, it appears that he received the prescribed punishment per law (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/). DC, maybe split this thread?

[Sutekh]

Because it allows the public to wash their hands of it after the problem is settled (or more likely when it exits the news cycle). People are attacking it for the wrong reasons. They need to figure out the true problem and then go after the root. The best that will happen is that guy loses his job, finds a new one with less publicity, and then the public can feel like they actually did something positive... when it was really just masturbatory distraction from the true problem. I mean, what is the public actually asking for here? Are they saying that Jamie Oliver should fire this guy or are they asking for a legal system where this guy would have received a more harsh punishment?

I can't speak personally for Joe Public and how they feel - but I agree they rely on an Adorno esque false sense of absolution through these witchunts

but that is quite apart from what my past few posts are getting at

Alright I'm asking you straight up for your opinion - do you think JO was wrong to hire this guy, given that he knew what he did?

[Sutekh]

I dunno, it's a "General Headlines" thread so I think we are to stick to General Headlines and not get into the woods with each General Headline. When that happens, we should probably create a new thread, or the admins will split the thread. yeah, I'm a drift-hater. For me to get into the weeds of this discussion, i.e. the typical sentence for child sexual assault (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/) and the number of offenders, etc., then we'd definitely veer beyond the "General Headlines" category.

right but page 53 (for example) has a whole chunk of back and forth about sharpton without any pleas from you for a split

[allegro]

right but page 53 (for example) has a whole chunk of back and forth about sharpton without any pleas from you for a split
Sorry, I just saw this going into the weeds, here, with legality, and we just had a huge discussion about this in the admin portion of the board, but Page 54 has less than 6 responses, so I'll bow out before it exceeds that, here.

Re JO, he's trying to rehabilitate this guy in his own way, since your own legal system doesn't seem to be interested in doing that? Who knows, he's a fucking idiot really wealthy celebrity chef. In the legal system, "punishment" is also intended to be "rehabilitation" in order to better serve society; it is not intended as "revenge," which the legal system does not view as serving society. Revenge = taking away a person's ability to make a living, which ultimately harms, not benefits, society, because it keeps the person on the dole. Rehabilitation better enables a person to "give back" to society. See Dickens for further reference.

[DigitalChaos]

I'll split it later tonight.

I wouldn't have hired the guy based on what I know. I'm sure there may be some edge cases where hiring him in specific roles would be more beneficial to the public. I also don't know enough about Oliver's reasoning to make a true judgement.

And that may be different than what you are getting at, but the demonstration of the public's skewed priorities is a great demonstration of why playing devils advocate is important. Honestly, that exact situation is a common occurrence in most "national discussions" you see. They take the easiest route that makes them feel like they are doing something good. Hell, I made similar complaints in the majority of the US focused headlines over the last year.

[Sutekh]

In the legal system, "punishment" is also intended to be "rehabilitation" in order to better serve society; it is not intended as "revenge," which the legal system does not view as serving society. Revenge = taking away a person's ability to make a living, which ultimately harms, not benefits, society, because it keeps the person on the dole. Rehabilitation better enables a person to "give back" to society. See Dickens for further reference.

Or see my previous posts where I addressed this exact issue. There is NO evidence that rehab for people like this exists, but I don't advocate death penalty or cutting my nose to spite my face by denying him benefit. I stated he should be suspended within the system in lieu of the death penalty. Scroll up - do you see?


I'll split it later tonight.

I wouldn't have hired the guy based on what I know.

Good

[Sutekh]

This raises a good question - what is the first step to tackling this problem? If moral outrage and high profile cases only serve to give a temporary feeling of false release - where do we begin :/

[allegro]

Or see my previous posts where I addressed this exact issue. There is NO evidence that rehab for people like this exists, but I don't advocate death penalty or cutting my nose to spite my face by denying him benefit. I stated he should be suspended within the system in lieu of the death penalty. Scroll up - do you see?
I see but didn't fully comprehend because your passion overshadowed any logic. And one case in his history does not provide enough evidence of what you are suggesting. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. We haven't seen his shrink records, his psych evaluations (if any), he was 19, we don't know the situation. It was a terrible crime, no doubt, but not all of these cases fall into the "beyond rehabilitation" category. And you can't simply lock all of these types up somewhere, the "system" can't support that, that kind of "system" does not exist without violating human rights. Even if these people do not seem human to you, they still have rights. There is a very thin line, there, between punishment and barbarism. And our taxpaying system simply cannot afford to support locking up first-time offenders and throwing away the keys. It costs a lot of money that the system simply does not have. Yes, it appears that your punishment for these crimes in the U.K. seem pretty lenient compared to ours, and I'm not sure why, other than perhaps an archaic standard of the lack of child's rights, in general, that needs to be changed, probably.

[DigitalChaos]

I'd say that people need to be pushing for their politicians to modify the laws surrounding punishment and request for longer sentences. If nobody is doing that, then this whole thing is just a circlejerk for the whole country.

allegro brings up a solid point though. Unless you were in the courtroom or have access to every detail from the case, I'm not sure anyone can say that they know better about what his punishment should be and that it should be life-ending and he can never recover from it.

[allegro]

Haha love the thread title.

[Sutekh]

I see but didn't fully comprehend because your passion overshadowed any logic. And one case in his history does not provide enough evidence of what you are suggesting. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. We haven't seen his shrink records, his psych evaluations (if any), he was 19, we don't know the situation. It was a terrible crime, no doubt, but not all of these cases fall into the "beyond rehabilitation" category. And you can't simply lock all of these types up somewhere, the "system" can't support that, that kind of "system" does not exist without violating human rights. Even if these people do not seem human to you, they still have rights. There is a very thin line, there, between punishment and barbarism. And our taxpaying system simply cannot afford to support locking up first-time offenders and throwing away the keys. It costs a lot of money that the system simply does not have. Yes, it appears that your punishment for these crimes in the U.K. seem pretty lenient compared to ours, and I'm not sure why, other than perhaps an archaic standard of the lack of child's rights, in general, that needs to be changed, probably.

Where is the evidence that child rapists can be rehabilitated? I've read with an open mind and I'm under the impression that as far as we know, they are like psychopaths and it appears to be hardwired once it takes root. Search around, the general consensus is that they cannot be cured. Why give people this awful the the benefit of the doubt for no reason. David Crawford did some very good work in this dept, check it out

At the end of the day you seem to be saying you find it hard to believe they can't change. I believe in rehabilitation of offenders and know for sure that some violent offenders (even murderers, Norwegians have a quite remarkable strategy involving island farms) can change, but I can't ignore the evidence with regards to this particular variety of offender.

Obviously I would never ask you or anyone to simply take my word for it, but you should be rooting an opinion on something this grave in evidence

My personal opinion on why the UK is so lenient

1. these crimes are under-reported
2. we are in denial as a society as to the scale
3. there are way more of these people then we suspect and this causes resistance to change in a myriad ways, as they tend to cluster around centres for abuse and make sure their crimes aren't reported

The reason I think they should be locked up indefinitely is because I don't believe they can change - that isn't barbarism. Releasing these people onto the streets when they are more than likely to reoffend is just... I don't even know what the term is. Suicidally liberal. It's not about putting the boot in for a sense of satisfaction in my case, it's about isolating people who will almost certainly wreck more lives

I work in social science, and lobby for stricter sentencing and increased powers to prosecute. I agree the moral panics constitute a circle-jerk as sometimes I feel like one of the only people taking this sort of thing seriously, devoting time to research and activism

[Sarah K]

There IS evidence that pedophiles can be rehabilitated. The positive outcome usually occurs when the person is caught and punished/rehabilitated early on in their adult lives.

I'm on my phone right now so can't pull up a bunch of stuff. But I'm sure a few minutes with Google Scholar can show you what you need.

I mean, I absolutely believe in second chances, and believe that people can change. Did he do something awful? Absolutely. But if he has served his time as the law sees fit, he deserves a shot to live his life, too.

[allegro]

See also this:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.html

[Sutekh]

That link places that rate of re-offending at 52% and admits it's a conservative estimate, stating that some subsets re-offend more than others and obtaining data on sex crime full stop is extremely difficult (implying there's more going on than we are aware of, not less).

This is still a hell of a risk to take, especially considering most offenders abuse more than one person

[allegro]

That link places that rate of re-offending at 52% and admits it's a conservative estimate, stating that some subsets re-offend more than others and obtaining data on sex crime full stop is extremely difficult (implying there's more going on than we are aware of, not less).

This is still a hell of a risk to take, especially considering most offenders abuse more than one person

Well, but it also states that not all "child sex offenders" are "pedophiles." (And since this victim was more-than-likely already done with puberty, this would technically be hebephilia, a crime, not a mental disorder.)

This child sex offender in particular must register as a sex offender for life, and one article said he's not allowed to work or live around any children for life. There don't appear to be any articles about his sentence or case other than that one recycled article.

Here's a much more comprehensive study (http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/CSOreport_files/CSO%20Recidivism%20Rpt.pdf).

Here is another one (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163390.pdf).

This is what we have in the U.S. as far as the sex offender registry and enforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registration#United_States). Here's the Registry (http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/registry).

[Sutekh]

OK if clarification is required, I want anyone who is a danger off the streets - paedophiles, hebephiles, pederasts and 70s radio djs

[Sarah K]

Well, sure... But what we want, and what the laws state are two very different things. If someone has served their time in the eyes of the law, then they should be allowed an opportunity. I agree with you that there should me harsher punishments. But THAT is where the outrage should be directed, NOT towards a guy who is trying to continue on with his life.

[Sutekh]

Well, sure... But what we want, and what the laws state are two very different things. If someone has served their time in the eyes of the law, then they should be allowed an opportunity. I agree with you that there should me harsher punishments. But THAT is where the outrage should be directed, NOT towards a guy who is trying to continue on with his life.

I'm not surprised at him trying to get on with his life & I can't really blame him (though I am amazed at how he can live with himself), but I take a dim view of the system and a very dim view of the employer giving that guy a chance over all the other applicants. If he came up to you, told you what he did and then asked for just a cigarette, how would you feel about giving him one? I'm just flabbergasted he was given a job as a nice cushy middle class professional

I just feel that this incident is an example of the kind of attitude which both creates and enables these kinds of people

[Sarah K]

Perhaps he was the most qualified candidate. I have no idea. I haven't really heard of this story.

And me giving the dude any chance would depend on how he felt about the situation. Did he admit his guilt? Does he feel bad? Or is he saying he was set up, etc? Is there a link with better details of this case?

It's not as if he got hired to be a preschool teacher or something. The food service industry is FILLED with people who have criminal records of varying degrees. FILLED!!!

[Sutekh]

Yeah but some crimes are a lot worse than others, and most crimes aren't as bad as raping a 12 year old. The issue isn't that he hired a criminal, it's the kind of criminal

I have to say it makes no difference to me if he was the most qualified for the job (I'm not saying he hired him because he was a sex offender), the crab linguini can be tip top but there's a point where I haven't got time for someone

[Sarah K]

I don't think anyone is arguing that. In my opinion, child rapists are the ones who should spend eternity behind bars. But that isn't the world we live in.

And as far as I'm aware, this is the man's first time getting caught, yeah? And he served his jail time. I'm sure he will be monitored for years after his release. If the employer doesn't have issues with the crime, then that is up to them, not us.

I mean, there are child rapists bagging your groceries, working on your cars, and serving you food each and every day. Many places believe in giving opportunities in these situations... And many places don't. As someone stated earlier, this is only news because he was hired by a celebrity, and not your local restaurant.

[Sutekh]

It's true that's the only reason why it's in the news, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong

I'm not sure what you mean it's not up to us - we aren't allowed to find this deeply wrong or object to society accommodating these people? Society is about reaching a consensus on acceptable standards through discussion and legislation

Also not sure what you mean by "served his jail time" - seeing as we're both agreed his sentence was a joke, what does that mean? He practically got away with it. He hasn't even begun to serve society by paying off his debt

[Sarah K]

It's not up to us to decide if this man is or is not qualified for the job that he was hired for. That is up to his employer. If his employer doesn't see issue with it, then that is their decision. There are tons of places who WOULD exclude this man from employment. Apparently this is not one of them.

You seem to be so sure of yourself that this man has not been rehabilitated. What are you basing this off of, besides the knee jerk answer of "rapists can't be helped"?

What I meant by he served his time is that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, he completed his punishment. Therefore, he should be able to move on with his life. I mean, we can go on all day about what "should" happen to these people. However, our opinions on that don't matter. You're free to not patronize wherever this man works. But it doesn't matter.

I mean, I guess what do you believe should happen to this dude? He should just never work again? What is that going to solve? That would just create more problems.

[Sutekh]

Already said - He should be relegated to minimum wage jobs. He has forfeit a great deal of status in society by doing what he did

Again I'm not really sure by what you mean when you say it isn't up to us to determine whether he is qualified? I'm not pretending this thread will change anything and we are entitled to our opinions on what goes on - making money is not so sacred that we should just mind our own business and keep quiet at all times - when it comes to people who are potentially (and in my argument, probably) harmful to society, it becomes something that concerns us because the conduct of employers is a big part of what sets the bar for morality in society

And also, money is a very effective insulator against detection/prosecution. He should have what he needs to survive and no more

The reason I doubt he is rehabilitated is because the evidence suggests a great deal of these people aren't - and those that have become less of a danger do so when they are caught and treated at an early age - this man was caught aged 19

[Sarah K]

How would you enforce someone only being able to work a minimum wage job? That doesn't make any sense at all, and isn't based in reality. What if he does a GREAT job at his minimum wage job, and gets promoted? See how silly this is? You're letting emotions get in the way of logic.

What I mean by it isn't up to us to decide if he is qualified is exactly that... This man won't be working with children. He will be cooking meat. It is up to the employer who wants to take a chance on him. Again, there are convicted pedophiles working in ALL KINDS of jobs, ALL OVER THE WORLD. To single this man out because a celebrity hired him is dumb.

There is sufficient evidence that points towards successful rehabilitation being achieved when the person is caught in their young adult life - which this man was. Will everyone be saved? Nope. But some will. And those people deserve second chances.

[Sutekh]

How would you enforce someone only being able to work a minimum wage job? That doesn't make any sense at all, and isn't based in reality. What if he does a GREAT job at his minimum wage job, and gets promoted? See how silly this is? You're letting emotions get in the way of logic.


No, you're just not thinking it through/giving me any credit - you put a note on their national insurance profile stating their limitation, and any employer will see that. Or upon offending, the NI number could be reassigned with a conspicuous difference to all others - for example everybody on such a register could have an NI number starting with a similar sequence of digits

Or you could make it so they can only apply for work through an intermediary... there's actually a great many ways to make such a system workable

And a great many jobs are dead-end with no prospect of promotion (this is news to you?). Service industry for example


What I mean by it isn't up to us to decide if he is qualified is exactly that... This man won't be working with children. He will be cooking meat. It is up to the employer who wants to take a chance on him. Again, there are convicted pedophiles working in ALL KINDS of jobs, ALL OVER THE WORLD. To single this man out because a celebrity hired him is dumb.

We aren't singling him out because his employer is a celebrity, we are singling him out because he is a rapist. The media has singled out his employer because he is a celebrity. You are so nearly saying his only crime is being associated with someone in the public eye

And I'm certain there are many sex offenders working in many positions all over the world... Don't you have a problem with that? That is the way it is but there's no reason I should just accept it - in fact I believe there's a moral imperative to challenge it


There is sufficient evidence that points towards successful rehabilitation being achieved when the person is caught in their young adult life - which this man was. Will everyone be saved? Nope. But some will. And those people deserve second chances.

If he can proven to be rehabilitated after a number of years then I would be up for lifting my restrictions on his employment, but what you're saying is we should just take a chance and if he re-offends, then that's just the price of preserving a rapist's liberty - to me that is just not important. Reduce the wealth and social mobility of someone like that and they are less likely to be able to buy discretion - or start a family

[Sarah K]

This is kind of veering WAY off of the topic, though. We're now venturing into a bizarre fantasy-land of what we think "should" happen to rapists. Which really doesn't matter.

This man isn't getting singled out because he is a rapist. He is getting singled out because a celebrity hired him. Period. There are millions of convicted rapists in the world who work. This man just happened to land a high profile job. He shouldn't be further punished for that.

[Sutekh]

So if he wasn't a rapist, he would still be getting singled out? Not making sense now I'm afraid

The eye is on him because his employer is famous, but he still did what he did and that's what I have a problem with

I have nothing else against Jamie... his scrumbling method for roast potatoes is the future

do you see what I mean? Of course we have noticed him because of his connection to Jamie, but we are having this discussion because he did what he did

OK he wouldn't be in the eye if it wasn't for Jamie, but he still did what he did and just because the media attention is unfair (sort of), doesn't mean he deserves a break

If you get caught with a bag of heroin up your ass and the cops only noticed you because you walked down the street with a naked person, does that mean you didn't have a bag of smack up your arse?

[Sarah K]

I don't think anybody is arguing that he did what he did?

We aren't having this discussion because he did what he did. Or the topic wouldn't have been only brought up when a celebrity hired him. If we aren't discussing him because of who his boss is, then I guess we need to bring up the millions of other child rapists who have been hired.

And as far as I know, he hasn't received a "break". He was sentenced in accordance with the law, and served his time.

[Sutekh]

He got 4 years and a nice job... asking your opinion, do you think that is just? That's what I mean by a break. Given that the system seemingly won't take his punishment seriously, society should pitch in and offer this guy the kind of opportunities he deserves. If he can go a few years cleaning toilets and living hand to mouth without cracking then review his case

And yes we do need to bring up those millions of others (and I suspect there are millions). Again I really don't get where you're coming from, are you saying we shouldn't have a debate about the ethics of punishment and reintegration of sex offenders because the hawkish media is the only reason the conversation is taking place? I agree it's diabolical that the media doesn't swoop on all the others but that doesn't make me feel like I'm in the wrong for discussing the issues and questions this example raises

I mean we only know about ISIS because of all the media coverage, should we in the interest of fairness ignore them and only discuss domestic terrorists. This logic doesn't work when you transpose it

[Sarah K]

No, I do not think that his punishment fit the crime. I already stated that. However, I DO believe that if a person admits their crime, and serves their sentence, they should be able to move on with their lives. I think that punishments should be harsher. I also believe in second chances.

Do you have some links you can provide for this(seriously)? I'm trying to look up information, and I'm not really finding too much that seems to be from actual sources.

Also, I read into this program, and it sounds like it is specifically targeted at young adults who have faced trouble in their lives. It also sounds like this man was completely honest about his past while applying for the program(and pleaded guilty during his trial). I dunno. I kinda wish that there were MORE programs like this. It actually sounds great! There are career counselors and therapists. It seems like a comprehensive life plan... So basically, he is receiving further rehabilitation.

[Sutekh]

The trouble is, an admission of guilt can be something prompted by insurmountable evidence, rather than good character or remorse... and really how much can a person have changed in the interim between the rape and the trial for the rape, and how good is their character to begin with, given the crime.

I do agree that a criminal who knows the game is up and pleads guilty to speed up the process and not waste public money should be thrown a bone, that shows they have some semblance of social responsibility. But again this kind of crime is different and their having committed it begin with says a lot about their attitude towards society - it's very different to say, a single mother who fiddles the books at work so her house doesn't get repossessed, and pleads guilty to a crime she committed out of necessity rather than a deep seated compulsion

I can get you absolutely everything on this fella but it will take a day or two

[DigitalChaos]

I spent waaaay too long looking for an image of Jamie Oliver holding a potato, this is the best I could do. I'M SORRY

http://i.imgur.com/aY06Jx0.jpg

[Sutekh]

Although you did find a picture with a pretty good description of him (above his name there)

[allegro]

I spent waaaay too long looking for an image of Jamie Oliver holding a potato, this is the best I could do. I'M SORRY

The guy doesn't know how to hold a BABY holy crap
http://www-hollybaby-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/092310_jamie_oliver_buddy_spl208828_016.jpg

[DigitalChaos]

hoooly shit that poor kid. I can just see the bounce while he walks D:
hopefully that was just a momentary thing while he switches arms or something...

[allegro]

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/09/23/1225928/601292-jamie-oliver.jpg

[allegro]

I guess he mostly has the other kids hold the babies
http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/pattygopez/default/jamie-oliver-buddy-bear-daisy--large-msg-131898046753.jpg

[Sutekh]

They probably put the foot down!

[DigitalChaos]

This made me think of an interesting question.... Would people be giving him shit if he also decided to give this guy a place to live in his own house (same house as his 4 kids live)?

[Dra508]

hoooly shit that poor kid. I can just see the bounce while he walks D:
hopefully that was just a momentary thing while he switches arms or something...Jaime, It's not a head of lettuce for FFS!


BTW, I was liked that drift about middle class. It seemed like an across the pond difference, but with this potato thread, I don't know where that piece of the convo went.

[DigitalChaos]

we got to potato because I kept misreading the title of this thread when skimming the forum: "Jamie Oliver hired a pedo"
I decided to change "pedo" to "potato" in the title sometime yesterday. I wanted to see if anyone would notice... to see if anyone else confused the two words as I did.

Nobody noticed :D
or everyone did notice and thought it was too dumb to even comment on

[DigitalChaos]

this is what happens when someone asks me to utilize a set of responsibilities that aren't available to everyone else... i make a mockery of those powers. I do the same shit at work. I hate hierarchy in just about everything :o

[Sutekh]

Jaime, It's not a head of lettuce for FFS!


BTW, I was liked that drift about middle class. It seemed like an across the pond difference, but with this potato thread, I don't know where that piece of the convo went.

Oh I'm bitter enough to keep that going - he blatantly doesn't know how to hold a baby because he's never had to do it before, help probably did it when he was growing up

*whittles*

[Dra508]

we got to potato because I kept misreading the title of this thread when skimming the forum: "Jamie Oliver hired a pedo"
I decided to change "pedo" to "potato" in the title sometime yesterday. I wanted to see if anyone would notice... to see if anyone else confused the two words as I did.

Nobody noticed :D
or everyone did notice and thought it was too dumb to even comment onI noticed!!

[Sallos]

damn i though we were talking about John Oliver. Oh well there goes my chance to bad mouth that beta loser.

[allegro]

we got to potato because I kept misreading the title of this thread when skimming the forum: "Jamie Oliver hired a pedo"
I decided to change "pedo" to "potato" in the title sometime yesterday. I wanted to see if anyone would notice... to see if anyone else confused the two words as I did.

Nobody noticed :D
or everyone did notice and thought it was too dumb to even comment on
I like potato better, because while doing a Google search yesterday trying to find anything other than the one single recycled news article on this guy, THIS THREAD appeared in the search. It's better when it doesn't, or when it appears in the search as "potato." There are some "anti-homosexual" weirdos on rants out there boycotting Oliver. Let's hide from them.

[marodi]

"Potato" was such an ETS thing. A "that's how we roll" thing.

About the whole case: Ranting about this guy isn't going to change anything. If you want to change things, get organized and lobby the lawmakers; that's where true change may happen.

[Sutekh]

Yep I do just that in addition to discussing it with my peers & people on the internet. I find it interesting how pointless people feel discussion is, discussion is what motivates action and ultimately change

[marodi]

Yep I do just that in addition to discussing it with my peers & people on the internet. I find it interesting how pointless people feel discussion is, discussion is what motivates action and ultimately change

I agree with everything you've written but it's just that in this Internet age, most people will end up ranting over and over and over instead of getting their butts of that damn computer chair and actually get into action mode. Discussing for the sake of getting ideas together and then acting on them is absolutely indispensable. It's the ranting as intellectual masturbation that's pointless.

[Sutekh]

It's true, when people take an uncritical attitude and just try to "win" the discussion and ignore facts that cast doubts on their arguments, it ceases to be constructive. However I think this has been a good thread so far, I've definitely mellowed my position a bit

[Dra508]

It's true, when people take an uncritical attitude and just try to "win" the discussion and ignore facts that cast doubts on their arguments, it ceases to be constructive. However I think this has been a good thread so far, I've definitely mellowed my position a bit @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) has that affect on a lot of us here. :rolleyes:

[allegro]

Yeah I always just ignore the facts and cast doubts on arguments in order to win, I'm a total troll.

[Sutekh]

No you misunderstand, we were talking about having a mellowing effect

[allegro]

No, really, I'm a troll.

Anybody want a Jamie Oliver potato?


Or a baby?
http://www-hollybaby-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/092310_jamie_oliver_buddy_spl208828_016.jpg

[Dra508]

No you misunderstand, we were talking about having a mellowing effect
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKydz_MmYueqe8tY4MR3Ollr2yl46M0 MvbN7ud-nJF4yCmE6uNiA] I see what she did there.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKydz_MmYueqe8tY4MR3Ollr2yl46M0 MvbN7ud-nJF4yCmE6uNiA

Sorry for the drift, but couldn't resist. Jaime Oliver, doesn't know how to hold his baby, hired a pedo, is he or isn't he developmentally disabled. Carry on.

[DigitalChaos]

I absolutely love the occasional "out of character" allegro posts and I really want to know the cause of them. I always assume it's the beloved wine and THAT makes me happy.

[allegro]

I absolutely love the occasional "out of character" allegro posts and I really want to know the cause of them. I always assume it's the beloved wine and THAT makes me happy.
No wine for me for a long time, migraine trigger. I'm just a sarcastic bitch.

[DF118]

Regardless of whether or not Jamie Oliver hired a potato, every time I see him, I want to punch him over and over again. He's got an extremely punchable face.

[allegro]

Can't somebody create an animated gif of that? While he's holding the baby?

(But don't hurt the baby.)

[Dra508]

No wine for me for a long time, migraine trigger. I'm just a sarcastic bitch.

Well at least you aren't an unapologetic bitch. If I see Madonna hashtag that shit again on Instagram I'm going to punch someone. Oh crap Google is going to pick that up and now she's hired a potato.

Not that I've been paying attention but I actually don't think this story has gotten a sound bite on this side of the pond. Last time I saw Jaime Oliver on network television he was criticizing American school lunches whilst serving them.

[WorzelG]

Well, sure... But what we want, and what the laws state are two very different things. If someone has served their time in the eyes of the law, then they should be allowed an opportunity. I agree with you that there should me harsher punishments. But THAT is where the outrage should be directed, NOT towards a guy who is trying to continue on with his life.
Britain is BOLLOCKS at giving proper sentences though, but there seems to be honestly nothing anybody can do about it. A few years ago there was a really awful case of a one year old who was abused and murdered, and because his mother, her nazi boyfriend and his brother all blamed each other they all ended up with reduced sentences of 12 years, 7 years and 5 years, one of the men involved was also tried for rape of a 2 year old. There was such a public outcry about the light sentencing, it was reviewed but found in complete accordance with sentencing guidelines. This was a baby who had a Rottweiler attack his head, burnt, broken back, finger nails ripped off, left in cot in his own shit to die and his mother who at the very least knew this was happening and worked very hard to explain things away and protect her boyfriend, is out of prison!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baby_P

This case practically turned me into a daily mail reader, hanging is too good for them type. The public in my country don't seem to have any recourse to change laws or sentencing

[Sutekh]

get 5 years for a few pills but 4 years for raping a kid

seriously... I'm not saying boomers need to die off so we can flush their arse backwards nonsense down the toilet. But err

Maybe I am!

[tremolo]

Is it Oliver's duty to make sure the rapist gets convicted for a certain period of time?

Nope.


Isn't a guy who commited a crime, was convicted and served his time, allowed to get a job?


I'm not defending anyone here, but it seems like people are not seeing the real problem, or where the problem comes from.

I couldn't care less for Jamie Oliver, but he's nobody to judge anyone. That's what "the law" is there for. Don't like the law? Go complain to those who make the law. It's that simple.

[Shadaloo]

This thread doesn't deliver.