Dirty old men vs dirty old woman..?

2»

Comments

  • EKGO wrote (see)

    Popsider you make a poor point, you almost condone what the Teacher has been up to, but you're quick to find Jimmy Savile guilty.

    The teacher is going to be prosecuted so whether or not you choose to label him a paedophile or think of him as unlucky, it is immaterial, he has basically labelled himself. There is another angle and that is the teaching profession can move from school to college to Uni, and back to school without too much exposure into the world of industry, business and life in general, despite all the training this can leave people without the worldly skills and the maturity that you sometimes need in life.

    What point is poor - I'm interested ?

    First off I haven't condoned what the teacher did - I said I'd give him 6 months for what he did.   I don't mind people disagreeing but at least make an argument - all you keep doing is repeating that he's broken the law and will be prosecuted.   Why I don't know because that doesn't seem to be a contentious fact - nobody least of all me has ever said otherwise.    

    As for the point about teachers - well teaching is a job that involves contact with people - lots of them - so why you think they live in some kind of ivory tower I don't know.  What is apparent is that you haven't really developed the capacity to think critically about anything so perhaps you could do with going back to school yourself.    

  • Stevie G . wrote (see)
    popsider wrote (see)
    Google suggests that the post over the page is correct - it's not legally rape - although the link is 6 years old so the law may have changed (seems unlikely though).  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm So can we now all accept that this teacher is not a paedophile and has not raped this girl - what he has done is abuse a position of authority and possibly committed other offences to do with leaving the country with her.       


    That link is a copper talking from his own personal opinion, and down the link are comments that he's on "very dicey ground", and the "law is very clear".

    Let's get to simple definitions, a paedo is someone sexually attracted to a child.

    Is a 15year old not a child these days?

    If you have a 14/15 year old daughter and you hear some 30-40year old man was having an affair with her, would you change your mind I wonder?

    No you are wrong on that - the article quite clearly sets out the law relevant to the discussion in this thread over the page.   It also discusses the copper's personal opinion of how the law should be prosecuted - that does not mean the bit where it sets out the law as it stands is his opinion that is fact.   The bit where it talks about him being on dicey ground is someone's opinion of how he thinks it should be prosecuted and not relevant to the bit about what the law actually is.   If you read it again you can see that is the case.   

    Again if you read the previous posts in this thread you will see that a paedo is someone attracted to people younger than this 15 year old.    As the poster over the page said that isn't my definition it's the accepted definition.   If you want to define it differently and say anyone that has sex with an under 16 is a paedo that's up to you but that's not the accepted definition.  

    Is a 15 year old a child ?   Well they aren't an adult - but then neither are they a child in the sense a 10 year old is.   I do have a 14 year old daughter as it happens - would I be happy if in say a year she ran off with a teacher - of course not - would I think the teacher was a paedo - no - would i want him sent to jail - yes - for how long - about 6 months.    

     

     

     

  • The definition in the dictionary is quite clear.

    What you seem to be referring to is statutory rape, which is another idea completely. Whether a 13-15 has "given consent", is neither here nor there, as they are still a child, and thus the older man is still a paedo by the very defintiion of having a "sexual interest" in them.

    Forget the fact the guy was a teacher then. If your daughter went out with a 50year old man, just a normal guy, not a teacher, you'd think that was ok would you? As you seem to think the only crime here is that the guy was a teacher and in a position of trust.

  • Statutory rape is an offence in America isn't it - I don't think the term has any meaning in British law but I haven't googled it so could be wrong.  

    Let's get it right anyway.  Over the page a couple of people were posting that it was legally rape - someone (not me) pointed out that isn't the case and I just posted a link that supported that.   

    As for whether he's a paedophile.   Well the guy that coined the term defined it as 
    a sexual interest in children pre or at the beginning of puberty - which this girl clearly isn't.   Whatever it says in your dictionary in practice it appears the term is used to refer to people with an interest in younger kids - not 15 year old teenagers who aren't really children anyway - more somewhere between childhood and adulthood.    

    As for the last para.   No I don't think the "only" crime here is a due to him being a teacher - I actually think being an adult puts you in a position of responsibility and that is if anything more important that him being a teacher.

    So having answered you perhaps you'll tell me what punishment you think he should get ?   Not what you think he will get - what you think he should get. 

     

  • Is there actually any evidence that they intercourse? Without any evidence he can't be convicted of any sexual offences he will be guilty of breaching his position of trust and child abduction



    As she is under 16 she cannot under English law give consent to anything, she if the parents or anyone with parental responsibility did not consent to her going with him then he has abducted her
  • I think most people you ask would agree that the girl being 15 makes it a lesser crime than some very young kid, but by being under 16, he will still get labelled a paedo by the majority, IF he's proven to actually have got involved in that way, which is likely, but not actually proven.

    If proven, naturally he'd get a life time ban from the teaching profession, and I think he should get a lengthy spell in jail. Not just 6months, as if he's refused to pay a parking fine.

    He's broken the sacred trust of being in a position of responsibility, he's broken the law, and he's crossed the no go zone of under 16.

    Most self respecting 30year olds would think early 20s was too young, so under 16 is just plain wrong.

  • I don't think anyone has disagreed that under 16 is just plain wrong - least of all me - I said I'd give him 6 months in jail for it and I'm assuming the best case - that he was infatuated and this isn't a pattern of behaviour he's shown before or that he was doing it in a calculated way.   

    Anyway I asked what you thought he should get ?

  • popsider wrote (see)

    Google suggests that the post over the page is correct - it's not legally rape - although the link is 6 years old so the law may have changed (seems unlikely though). 

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm So can we now all accept that this teacher is not a paedophile and has not raped this girl - what he has done is abuse a position of authority and possibly committed other offences to do with leaving the country with her.      It's not equivalent legally or morally to the kind of stuff Jimmy Savile was getting up to - someone like that deserves to rot in jail the teacher should get maybe 6 months tops imo.   Of course I'm assuming that there was no element of coercion or calculation in what he did - in other words he was just an immature weak minded infatuated idiot.   

    You didn't actually ask what anyone thought, you asked if we would agree that he is not a Paedophile, and you stated your own view that he should get 6 months.

    Now you're asking what others think, personally I think he is a paedophile (Law and personal definitions) and I disagree with 6 months, he should get the going rate for someone who interferes with a Minor from a position of trust. The courts should also look at this from the point of view that he is not showing remorse and is stating a wish to remain near the girl in question which in my book places him in a category of unapologetic offender. 

  • I think what the judge has to look at is how much of a danger to the public he would be once he comes out of prison. I think a prison sentence and a lifetime ban from working with children is inevitable but would a long prison sentence be in the public interest?

    Personally I think the prison sentence will be the least severe of his punishment. His life, his reputaion, his career, his marriage and his future relationship with his child has all gone disastrously wrong.
  • the sentence should be determined by the facts... we can all probably agree that these are not known and will not be known until the court case.if they come out there.........

    so no point in looking at the sentences......

  • Sussex and Seren, I agree with you both, his life is in tatters, so his own self-imposed sentence will be the worst part of this. As for whether or not he will re-offend, time will tell, my concern would be his comments on staying close to the girl. That suggests he sees it as unfinished business which is a bit scary, but if they ever celebrate 30 years married we'll all have been wrong

     

  • EKGO wrote (see)

     That suggests he sees it as unfinished business which is a bit scary, but if they ever celebrate 30 years married we'll all have been wrong

     


    you could do well reading this article by Prof Pat Sikes who, apart from being an expert in pupil/teacher relationships, also fell in love with a teacher when she was 14 and eventually married him (still is married to him I believe).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/03/teacher-pupil-relationships

    there's also a more recent one she is quoted in but is more from a pupil's view

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/28/relationship-with-teacher-not-my-fault

  • I'm sure there are one or two who do go on to marry, or have long term relationships but I'm guessing that's the minority. Also having read the articles, it's good to have the views of those who have been there etc, but the first article is preachy, the second more sordid, but I would have great difficulty in taking seriously the views of either, as they are both so intimately associated with the problem.

    I still say where underage children are involved more caution is required than anything else.

  • EKGO wrote (see)

    You didn't actually ask what anyone thought, you asked if we would agree that he is not a Paedophile, and you stated your own view that he should get 6 months.

    Now you're asking what others think, personally I think he is a paedophile (Law and personal definitions) and I disagree with 6 months, he should get the going rate for someone who interferes with a Minor from a position of trust. The courts should also look at this from the point of view that he is not showing remorse and is stating a wish to remain near the girl in question which in my book places him in a category of unapologetic offender. 


    EKGO - my question was to Stevie - as he thinks I am being lenient I thought it fair he says what punishment the guy should serve.   You think he should serve the same as the "going rate" for someone that interferes with kids - there is no going rate -there are different offences depending on the kids and what kind of interfering was going on !   Better just to say you think he should serve 6 months, 6 years or whatever - make your view known.   

    Seren is right that we don't know the facts - but on the face of it this guy is not in the same category as a Jimmy Savile case - at least not to me.   As (I think it was) Sussex Runner said - a lot depends on whether this guy is judged a danger - if he isn't then I can't see the point in punishment for the sake of punishment.   If he is judged a danger (by specialists) then yes a longer punishment is called for.  

    The paedo or not argument has been covered so no point in rehashing it.

  • Well while you ask, on the basis of the case R. v Brennan where a man abducted his own son willingly to live with his new family in Canada, with no other motive than wanting to be with his own son, he received 4 years because the mitigating circumstances showed a degree of planning and deceit.

    This person did the same really, he took a willing partcipant abroad but his reasons were somehwat different. It still shows a similar degree of planning and deceit, therefore I'd say 6 years was not inappropriate

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.