Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion

Jamie Oliver hires convicted peadophile in restaurant

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 929
Forum Member
✭✭
in General Discussion #1
What do you make of it all?
Chef David Mason, 24, from Feltham, Surrey, was convicted of raping a child
Initially said it was consensual but then admitted raping her when he was 19
Judge told him: 'You knew having sex with such a young girl was wrong'
In 2010 he was sentenced to four years in a young offenders' institution
Now Mason has been chosen for Oliver's Fifteen apprentice programme
It 'helps young people stay out of trouble and make something of lives'
Spokesman for the TV chef says: 'We decided that he deserved his chance'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795269/paedophile-24-raped-12-year-old-girl-handed-job-chef-jamie-oliver-s-fifteen-restaurant-ahead-thousands-disadvantaged-applicants.html#ixzz3GQYptPUG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Was Jamie Oliver out of line hiring David Mason? 29 votes

Yes, it's totally wrong
17% 5 votes
No, I don't see the problem
82% 24 votes

Comments

  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    Third thread on this today.
  • GPWGPW Posts: 3,375
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    IF this person can be given employment then so be it.
    We cant lock them up for ever.

    In no way am I condoning his vile actions, but whilst he is in paid employment he is less likely to be a menace to the public.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    Time served is time served unless we want former criminals to live off the tax payer once out of prison. Proper training learning a trade is the right way forward to make them part of society again and remain busy without the time to sit and maybe commit another crime, also technically the man is not a paedophile, he committed a sex offence yes but a paedophile is only intersted in prepuescent children , sadly for the girl he did commit the crime , thankfully he seems to have no other history for sex offences ( no evidence of serial abuse ) and lets hope it stays that way, and in gainful employment will help him stay on the straight and narrow.

    Jamie Olivers Fifteen is part of a charitable foundation set up for employing people just like this man.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    skp20040 wrote: »
    Time served is time served unless we want former criminals to live off the tax payer once out of prison. Proper training learning a trade is the right way forward to make them part of society again and remain busy without the time to sit and maybe commit another crime, also technically the man is not a paedophile, he committed a sex offence yes but a paedophile is only intersted in prepuescent children , sadly for the girl he did commit the crime , thankfully he seems to have no other history for sex offences ( no evidence of serial abuse ) and lets hope it stays that way, and in gainful employment will help him stay on the straight and narrow.

    Jamie Olivers Fifteen is part of a charitable foundation set up for employing people just like this man.

    You do know that not all girls go through puberty before the age of 12 years old so it is quite possible that she was prepubescent.

    The problem Jamie will have is if any of the other apprentices are under the age of 18.
  • GeneralissimoGeneralissimo Posts: 6,289
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    No matter how repulsive an offence is, once someone is out of prison they are free to do as they like and Jamie Oliver is free to employ him. The real issue is the pitiful sentence he received in the first place.
  • TerraCanisTerraCanis Posts: 14,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    The use of terms such as "paedophile" and (as in one of the other threads on this subject) "nonce" really are unhelpful. The law convicts, and the courts punish, on the basis of a person's actions, not their nature, which is what it should be.

    If anyone has any issues with the length of the sentence, then any objections should be directed toward the judicial system, and I really don't see it as Jamie Oliver's role (or indeed any of us) to make up additional punishments to impose over and above the sentence handed down by the court.

    Courts already have the power to ban convicted offenders from working in certain occupations on their release (particularly where the offence and the occupation involve children) What seems to have been suggested in the last few days (not just in this thread) is that there should be a more general prohibition on the employment of released offender so that they become a burden on the state. Still, I suppose that does increase the chance of their re-offending and ending up back inside, which doubtless would be a satisfactory outcome for some.
Sign In or Register to comment.