Child Social Worker Solicits Kids for PornographyWritten by: Rodney Print This Article
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
Child social workers like to talk about how they are wonderful people because they protect and help children. Christopher Hardman from West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, likely thought of himself that way. He was a child social worker for at risk youth working as a team leader for the Kirklees MBC’s Youth Offending Team. He used his job to gain contact information for minor children and dupe them into posing topless or nude for photo shoots for him, thereby “helping” them earn a little extra money. He offered them 60 to 80 British pounds for topless shoots, and 80 to 120 for full nudity. He convinced at least five teenage girls as young as 15 years old and at least one adult woman over age 20 to engage in pornography with photographer David Hemingway who was working with him. During a search of his home, police found evidence that Hardman is also a drug user.
Despite his apparent crimes that were investigated by the police and the social services agency for which he worked, he hasn’t been prosecuted. The only action taken against him was to ban him from being a social worker again.
Apparently child pornography is acceptable conduct when promoted by social workers in UK, but it’s not OK to be caught doing it because it embarrasses the agencies. Hardman’s known child pornography and related misconduct occurred in 2005 and was discovered in early 2006 when photographer David Hemingway was arrested and police searched his home.
The agency bureaucrats try to save face regarding Hardman’s actions by spreading what appears to be misinformation that they removed Hardman from his work as soon as the allegations became known:
A Kirklees Council spokesman said: “As soon as these allegations came to light, Mr Hardman was suspended from his duties with immediate effect and we relayed our concerns to the General Social Care Council.
“A disciplinary investigation was carried out and Mr Hardman resigned before the hearing. He declined to attend the hearing, after which he was informed that he would have been dismissed had he not already resigned.
But Hardman resigned before a disciplinary hearing in 2007, suggesting that the story is not as the bureaucrats claim:
Hardman resigned from the authority in 2007 following police investigations into the allegations.
The recent July 2009 hearing that finally banned Hardman from being a child social worker in UK took about 3 to 4 years from when his misconduct was first discovered. Clearly the government is interested in speedy protection of children from harm. It’s no wonder so many children end up abused and dead at the hands of social workers.
Amazingly, Hardman talked the mothers of some of these girls into approving the topless and nude photography activities. He represented that this was acceptable conduct and a good way to make some extra money.
Both Miss C and D, 16 and about 18, who were known to the youth offending team, agreed to pose topless, with C taking part in a shoot with a friend after obtaining parental consent.
Miss D took part in two shoots, with her mother present, and was described to the committee as “vulnerable”.
Hardman also targeted Miss E, obtaining her details through work.
The 16-year-old was described as “extremely vulnerable, especially to older men”.
A final young woman who was persuaded to pose for photos was the daughter of a colleague, after Hardman persuaded the mother that it was a good way to make money, concealing his involvement with the bogus photo studio. The young woman who took part was aged more than 20.
There’s no talk of misconduct against the mothers who approved of sexual victimization of their daughters. Nor is there any discussion about the apparent poor judgment of Hardman’s female social services colleague who knew he was encouraging her and her daughter to engage in pornography. Perhaps the hiring standards for child social services agencies are far more lax than the public believes and there are many more social workers who should be fired and banned from further work with children.
If it had been fathers who had been approving and attending pornographic photo shoots with their kids, do you think the same lackadaisical attitude would prevail? Obviously the answer is a resounding no. Yet this sexist attitude of ignoring harmful actions condoned or committed by mothers is one of the reasons why more child abuse is committed by women than men.