1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Primary' started by regencyrob, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. I have been into a few schools recently and I am amazed how much ********** stuff is on the classroom walls.
    People know the much publicised stories about ********** - but it seems people have forgotten what the director of this company did.
    Have you been told it's now allowed? Have you been told you are not allowed to use it?
  2. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    Everytime I hear that teachers are still using his stuff it makes my stomach churn.
    I cannot honestly square the fact that he is a twice jailed paedophile who took pleasure in photographs of young children being abused in the worst possible way (IMHO) and teachers of young children still feel no qualms about using his stuff and putting it on display ....... for young children.
    They argue that it's the man not the materials and manage to separate the two but to me they are one and the same.
    That said, his materials are not legally banned. They should however - in my opinion - be morally banned because they are tainted with his crimes.
    It's all very. very sad not to say ironic that schools effectively still promote and support this man.
  3. If we banished every bit of art/music/literature that has been painted/composed/played/written by those of dubious morals we would be considerably poorer culturally.
    I no longer use ********** - but what purpose would it serve to destroy previously accumulated resources? Other than to waste money?
  4. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    No purpose at all if you can look at it and not think of child abuse...........
  5. minnieminx

    minnieminx New commenter

    That's more or less how I see it too.
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    It seems morally wrong to me that a twice convicted paedophile can profit from schools in order to continue his "hobby".
  7. Particularly when he tried to use the website to continue his 'hobby' by encouraging teachers/parents to send in photos of children. He shouldn't have been allowed to continue to run the site, having already misused it.
  8. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    I am unable to list any with dubious morals that are still alive. I suppose Gary Glitter fell from his perch though and doesn't seem very popular since he was also outed as a paedophile.
    As for SB, I don't think he was ever one of the greats as referred to above - or was he?
  9. Artist? No! Musician? No! writer? No! How does this apply?
    My argument is this: would you accept anything else off a convicted paedophile? If the answer is no then why is it acceptable to get resources from him?
    If you knew that someone had bought something for your child from a paedophile and then taken a picture of your child wearing it/using it and then sent it to said paedophile would you be happy??
  10. I work as a casual teacher in Primary Schools in Sydney and recently went into the Staffroom at a school during a break and saw that someone had put a note on the wall saying '********** - great website for free resources' with the web address.
    I decided to tell one of the full time teachers that it had been banned by schools back home and why. She just looked at me as if I was making it up, which made me wish I hadn't said anything.

  11. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    There will always be those who divorce the man from the act and will continue to take what they see as 'free' because they believe it's 'free' and continue to ignore the reality of what he is so continue to support him.
    There will also be people who cannot condone what he did especially when he did it TWICE and can't understand how others can do the opposite and promote him.
    Perhaps the teachers referred to above weren't aware and had never Googled daniel/Samuel Kinge and read the reports.
    And Regencyrob, I agree with you.

  12. harsh-but-fair

    harsh-but-fair Star commenter

    Perhaps we should stop prosecuting people for hurting other people. Just think how much culturally richer we might become...
  13. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    good point.
    If Myra Hindley had got to write her book we could have all read about the Moors murders from her point of view and she could have been allowed to keep her profits since she would have written the book.
    Why don't we go the whole hog and allow criminals to profit from their crimes and be done with it.
    Then again, who would want to buy a book by a child murderer such as Myra Hindley if they knew she had written it and was profitting from it?
    Then again, if she'd written books specifically FOR children (of the cute type of course) would that be allowed? Would they be found in schools, maybe as reading scheme books? of course they would have to be good books and free,

  14. I no longer use SB... but there a few resources in my school (and in my files) that originally came from SB. Seriously, you want me to make them all again? What purpose does that serve other than to waste my time and the school's money?
    I do not condone in any way the behaviour of this man. But a few old phonics flash cards are not going to corrupt my morals, or those of the children in my care.
    There are plenty of debauched artists/composers/writers/musicians, both alive and dead. We somehow manage to mentally divorce their past work from their unpleasant lives. We haven't burned every print of Polanski's films for example. I know SB is not great art, but I don't see the point in remaking (still useful) stuff so I can feel holier than thou.
  15. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    If you feel OK about using a paedophile's offerings to teach young children then what you do with them is up to you.
    I, on the other hand, couldn't even look at them in a child setting without thinking of what he did (what he is) but that's up to me. Neither would I have anything from SB in my school.
  16. I've just spent the morning researching (googling) this very topic and I want to say thank you to all the people who have posted information regarding this.
    I have used ********** resources and have some in class. I had been led to believe the company was owned by someone else and that awful man had just worked for them.
    I actually feel really cross at myself for not finding out more...I could use the fact that most of this happened during the years I was on Mat leave but I won't. I should have been better informed.
    I've just deleted any resources I had on my laptop, am going through my memory stick when my children are in bed to delete anything off there and removing anything in my class once back at school.
    Yes, the resources are good and useful and replacing them will be time consuming but I cannot justify having ANYTHING from that site in my class.
    I am a mum of two as well as a teacher and if I think of what he did, well, I feel sick to my stomach.
    When I deleted the resources I did have on my laptop, I noticed his name shown in the file information box as the author of some of the documents. This just brought home to me how, whilst he may be in prison, he is the very heart of the company.
    Thanks again for all the information and links. I shall definitely be sharing this back at school.

  17. I know I am going to make myself very unpopular now, but here goes:: It is my understanding that Kinge was convicted and served time for his crimes, that he is still monitored and on all the relevant lists, and that his Internet use is monitored by police. So there should not be any danger posed to children by using the site or the materials. I have read that the ownership of the site has actually changed to another family member, although of course, that's no guarantee that Kinge is not getting some money from it. But my point is that justice has been done and safeguards are in place.The florid statements some are making on here are about continuing to punish someone after they have served their time. In my view if this man manages to have some sort of employment this is protective of children. He would be a far greater danger if unemployed and unable to pass his time in some sort of useful occupation.
  18. I think for me it just doesn't seem right or proper to use resources from there anymore. The fact he has been convicted twice and changed his name by deed poll seems to say to me that he is still a risk.
    He has been convicted and punished, and I am not saying he should be punished further. I just feel that his motivation for initially created such a website is questionable.
    I am glad he is still monitored and on the appopriate lists and registers.
    I personally feel unhappy that resources associated with him would be used by myself. This is my opinion and if others feel differently then that's fine.
    I can only do what I think is right.
    And I'm looking forward to exploring new resources or creating more of my own!
  19. Earl Davids wife

    Earl Davids wife New commenter

    Oh dear. You are of course entitled to your opinion and free to support him. Downloading his resources is not illegal just <u>morally questionable</u> in some people's eyes, including mine.
    Some of us on here remember when Daniel Kinge started his site - of course he called himself Samuel by then because he'd already served his first term in prison and lost his job teaching in a nursery, but no one knew about it so, the early years forum was flooded with messages for him.
    Then, some time later he offended AGAIN and served a second term in prison. Then it all became public knowledge.
    He had his chance but proved that he was still a paedophile. If he'd kept himself in check after his first prison sentence no one would have been any the wiser (except those involved) but no, he couldn't keep himself in check could he. Once maybe but twice ........... ???
    He IS the owner of SB. Why on earth wouldn't he be?
    His site is not illegal. He is free to make money from it and by implication from teachers of young children, just like those he was so keen to see being sexually abused.
    If you or any one else looks up his company you will see one or two 'relatives' named alongside himself. That's normal. He must be laughing all the way to the bank and as I've said in the past, his business plan was inspirational. Shame about his paedophile tendancies.

  20. What I am supporting is the principal of the rule of law, not this particular person. If someone serves their sentence then the slate is clean. In this case, and because of the nature of the crime, vigilance continues. It is dealt with.

Share This Page