| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks fox.
Great info!
I had assumed France had a guilty until proven innocent basis. Thanks for the information on this.
I could not agree more with the presumption of innocence, it is vital.
As for the Korean reaction to this particular potential crime by a foreign teacher. Can we please not confuse some Korean media with the entire peninsula and their view of foreigners?
Some of you dislike how some Korean media portray Foreigners (all in one basket). Do not then turn around and use the same retarded generalization on Koreans.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some of us also dislike calls in parliament for ridiculous and unworkable screening requirements for unrelated issues based on the mere allegation of a crime by a foreigner.
Note that I am not against screening. I just want it to be realistic, workable, and based on facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Note that I am not against screening. |
I am. They are just feel-good, knee-jerk ploys by opportunistic politicians which are ineffective and only serve to place more hoops for the NET to jump through.
And this guy proves it. Guilty or not, he had a clean background check (presumably). In fact, all the NETs who have committed crimes herein recent years have. Thus, it makes just as much sense to make a new regulation prohibiting those with clean background checks from getting visas.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Note that I am not against screening. |
I am. They are just feel-good, knee-jerk ploys by opportunistic politicians which are ineffective and only serve to place more hoops for the NET to jump through.
And this guy proves it. Guilty or not, he had a clean background check (presumably). In fact, all the NETs who have committed crimes herein recent years have. Thus, it makes just as much sense to make a new regulation prohibiting those with clean background checks from getting visas. |
Just because a perpetrator has a clean background does not mean that its a bad idea to screen for someone with a dirty background.
I mean the reason you don't have people with dirty backgrounds committing crimes here is because they were denied entrance because of their dirty background.
Like, duh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Note that I am not against screening. |
I am. They are just feel-good, knee-jerk ploys by opportunistic politicians which are ineffective and only serve to place more hoops for the NET to jump through.
And this guy proves it. Guilty or not, he had a clean background check (presumably). In fact, all the NETs who have committed crimes herein recent years have. Thus, it makes just as much sense to make a new regulation prohibiting those with clean background checks from getting visas. |
Just because a perpetrator has a clean background does not mean that its a bad idea to screen for someone with a dirty background.
I mean the reason you don't have people with dirty backgrounds committing crimes here is because they were denied entrance because of their dirty background.
Like, duh. |
Someone please tell this guy what means. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Note that I am not against screening. |
I am. They are just feel-good, knee-jerk ploys by opportunistic politicians which are ineffective and only serve to place more hoops for the NET to jump through.
And this guy proves it. Guilty or not, he had a clean background check (presumably). In fact, all the NETs who have committed crimes herein recent years have. Thus, it makes just as much sense to make a new regulation prohibiting those with clean background checks from getting visas. |
Just because a perpetrator has a clean background does not mean that its a bad idea to screen for someone with a dirty background.
I mean the reason you don't have people with dirty backgrounds committing crimes here is because they were denied entrance because of their dirty background.
Like, duh. |
Someone please tell this guy what means. Thanks. |
From the way you wrote it the eye roll seemed to apply to the belief that a background checks are no deterrent to the criminal element and illegal conduct. But I could be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is so refreshing to read that the problem is not that children were abused, damaged , perhaps for life but that English teachers might have to take some time off from their important lives to do the paperwork to get a background check. What monsters these Koreans, wanting to know that their children be safe when they drop them off at school. A man , CPN who made a profession of raping children lived and taught in Korea. If i were a parent after learning of that i would want the most rigorous background checks for people around my child. They may not be foolproof but I would want them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| If i were a parent after learning of that i would want the most rigorous background checks for people around my child. They may not be foolproof but I would want them. |
would you want cannabis blood tests for them as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| It is so refreshing to read that the problem is not that children were abused, damaged , perhaps for life but that English teachers might have to take some time off from their important lives to do the paperwork to get a background check. What monsters these Koreans, wanting to know that their children be safe when they drop them off at school. A man , CPN who made a profession of raping children lived and taught in Korea. If i were a parent after learning of that i would want the most rigorous background checks for people around my child. They may not be foolproof but I would want them. |
I agree. Although it might only be somewhat successful as a deterrent from stopping convicted criminals (some may be dangerous/some not) from working with children, I think it is still worth it to have to jump through the hoops. It's not really preventing anyone with a clean record, it is just inconvenient to have to take these papers everywhere to get stamped. It might delay your arrival a few weeks.
Any teaching job in the States I've heard of will require you to have a background check as well. By the FBI AND the State. The tedious process is because the documents have to go internationally, and they are trying to prevent someone from forging them. I'm not exactly sure if it works, but if it stops just one molester from seeking work overseas it is worth it in my book.
The question raised about a pot test: If it is illegal to use/smoke pot in the country or state where you are applying, I don't see what the problem is with testing for it. If you want to become a teacher in Korea, make a choice. Don't smoke for a month before coming and then come to teach, or seek employment in a different country. If pot is such a big part of your life, then teaching as a profession in Korea (or anywhere else) may not be for you. (I'm not saying the person who asked is a pot head, I'm directing my last three sentences at everyone in general).
Now the AIDS/Health check is pretty ridiculous. I think that comes from a stigma some cultures have against homosexuals. (AIDS is only a gay disease?!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| If i were a parent after learning of that i would want the most rigorous background checks for people around my child. They may not be foolproof but I would want them. |
would you want cannabis blood tests for them as well? |
Why not. Along with tests for 'hard' drugs.
If someone can't get clean for 30 days then they probably don't have the makeup to move to a foreign country and teach children. That's what that test would be really about in my view. If you can't hack that, don't bother coming here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
What measures can be taken to prevent the likes of CPN and this latest paedo from getting into the country?
I would say the following:
1) require a national CBC, not merely one from a particular state.
2) Include a couple of well-esteemed professional foreigners in the vetting procedure. Koreans simply don't know how to read the cultural signs of wether someone is a likely risk or not. They seem not to be good judges of character either where foreigners are concerned.
*3) Testing for cannabis is virtually irrelevant when it comes to keeping out abusers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
*3) Testing for cannabis is virtually irrelevant when it comes to keeping out abusers. |
Child abusers yes, you are absolutely right. Drug abusers....well I'm sure it will help with keeping them out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Macho
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
What measures can be taken to prevent the likes of CPN and this latest paedo from getting into the country?
I would say the following:
1) require a national CBC, not merely one from a particular state. |
Having a federal check is the most sensible recommendation. An FBI check (with fingerprints) is required for teachers in the US; this standard should be no different for American teachers going abroad.
In the past I have seen posts on the forums recommending Americans with minor infringements (traffic violations, maybe a silly pot bust) get a CBC in a state other than the one in which they were busted. These sorts of loopholes should be closed. (N.B. Much to the mods' credit, they have always deleted those posts.)
It's a real shame that the FBI hasn't streamlined the process for getting a BC done.
| Quote: |
| 2) Include a couple of well-esteemed professional foreigners in the vetting procedure. Koreans simply don't know how to read the cultural signs of wether someone is a likely risk or not. They seem not to be good judges of character either where foreigners are concerned. |
This is hard to do. I'd imagine that the main reason they have the consulate interview is to try to weed out the weirdos, but it doesn't work all of the time. When I went to my interview there was an old man (60+) there who was obviously unstable. He got the visa, even though he was a big PITA to everyone in the office.
| Quote: |
| *3) Testing for cannabis is virtually irrelevant when it comes to keeping out abusers. |
Of course. Pot use has nothing to do with child abuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
We can take pot screening and criminal checks as separate issues.
The CBC should be comprehensive. That check will not keep out every paedo but it will act as a deterent (this has to be the intent here). The deterent reduces the number of paedos that can get to Korea so in that respect the screening meets its main goal.
The drug screening is also fine. I agree that if you cannot keep off pot for 30 days before coming to Korea then perhaps Korea is not the place for you. Like it or not, it is their kids we are teaching....
What could and should be done is to streamline the process. Have a database in place where visa renewal is made simpler for those already in Korea. The CBC could still be required but should be from Korean police.
The yearly general health check is reasonable as well.
Drug screens are deterents, just like the CBC. The aim is to reduce the number of drug users who get a work visa. Again, completely reasonable.
As a parent of 2, I think checks should be in place for teachers, especially those that are hired sight unseen from abroad. It is one thing to check on someone who is a citizen and who therefore has a local history that can be verified. It is another to hire someone from abroad when you have far fewer ways to evaluate them.
In that respect, Korea is doing what it feels is efficient: it is putting deterents in place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And flat-out telling lies about the reason for them. Are you comfortable with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
