Monday, 13 July 2009

I Think He Misread The Title On His Job Application...

...as 'Save One For Me':
A Save the Children worker who led a double life as a member of an international internet paedophile ring is facing years behind bars.
He got around quite a bit, too:
Sohail Ayaz, 35, of Whiting Avenue, Barking, came to the UK on a two-year visa after molesting a 13-year-old boy and taking photos of the abuse.

He is also wanted in Italy accused of helping perverts there and in Norway sexually assault at least 15 Romanian children.
So, we don't have any low-level clerical staff in the UK (or even in Barking itself) who could do this job, but we need to import them from Pakistan?

I thought charity began at home...

7 comments:

Oldrightie said...

They are everywhere and in very high places. Remember how Belgium and Jersey shot the messenger.

Nick von Mises said...

If anyone spots this in the Grauniad let me know. I've got a £10 bet on.

Obsidian said...

So, we don't have any low-level clerical staff in the UK (or even in Barking itself) who could do this job, but we need to import them from Pakistan?

He could probably speak better English, turned up at the interview on-time and well dressed, and didn't have a CV written in pink crayola.

New Labours education policy seems to be targeted at improving the lot of everyone except anyone in the UK.

JuliaM said...

"If anyone spots this in the Grauniad let me know. I've got a £10 bet on."

Oh, I think your money's safe...

"He could probably speak better English, turned up at the interview on-time and well dressed, and didn't have a CV written in pink crayola."

Lol! True..

blueknight said...

There are some jobs that will always attract this type of person.
Teaching, youthworking, sports coaching, childrens entertainer, to name but a few.
I thought that checks were made?

David Gillies said...

Yes, checks are made. They always have been, to some extent. The problem is that when they become so fine-grained that you catch all the pervs, you also dissuade the innocent from becoming involved. How much proof of identity and intent are you willing to proffer in order to convince your bank you're not a money launderer? It feels intrusive, doesn't it? You feel that your honour has been impugned, don't you? You know you're on the side of the angels, so why should you have to prove that you're not? Every time you read about a crook or a kiddie-fiddler slipping through the net and think, "why didn't they catch him?" ask yourself if you're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The needle might have been too far to the 'lax' side of the dial in years past. That does not necessarily mean we have to crank it all the way to the 'paranoid' end of the scale. Ultimately it's best situated at an equilibrium point between a certain number of nonces getting through the screen as opposed to genuine helpers being chased off. I appreciate that such subtleties are probably lost on the kind of people who'd attack a paediatrician, but the notion of cost-benefit and opportunity cost should not be completely alien to people who claim to have an intelligent contribution to make to the discourse (not that I'm saying you haven't, blueknight.)

JuliaM said...

"I thought that checks were made?"

Only for direct contact, it seems.

According to the spokewoman: "She said: "He was a fairly junior clerical worker and did not have any contact with children or access to any confidential information about children."

"The problem is that when they become so fine-grained that you catch all the pervs, you also dissuade the innocent from becoming involved."

Indeed.

And we can look forward to some choice absurdities in the future if this idiocy ever crosses the pond...