Missing Megan - A moral Dilemma *Bird back in Blighty*

Dark Ritual wrote:Yeah. Not much a jury can really do if the girl gets on the stand and says she willingly went along with it all.

That's a very good point to honest. When the 'victim' in the case disputes the charges and says she was happy to go with him and she made the choice it's going to be hard for him to be found guilty.

Only thing I can think of is if there are messages where he's constantly pressuring her to run away with him or something but even then it'll still be tough.

At her age I don't think it matters if she went willingly or not. She was underage and he took her out of the country. It's probably a statutory offence.

Lagamorph wrote:At her age I don't think it matters if she went willingly or not. She was underage and he took her out of the country. It's probably a statutory offence.

If that's right then presumably they have charged him with this as it means they can hold him for questioning before deciding if further charges are justified right?

Poser wrote:So, maths teachers make rubbish international covert operatives, eh?

It was a...

*dons shades*

...calculated risk.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lagamorph wrote:At her age I don't think it matters if she went willingly or not. She was underage and he took her out of the country. It's probably a statutory offence.

I'm sure they can charge him. What I mean is the likelihood of a jury convicting.

Dark Ritual wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:At her age I don't think it matters if she went willingly or not. She was underage and he took her out of the country. It's probably a statutory offence.

I'm sure they can charge him. What I mean is the likelihood of a jury convicting.

They'll convict if they're doing they're job right. It's pretty much beyond reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, and that's all the jury is for.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Poser wrote:So, maths teachers make rubbish international covert operatives, eh?

It was a...

*dons shades*

...calculated risk.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Poser wrote:So, maths teachers make rubbish international covert operatives, eh?

It was a...

*dons shades*

...calculated risk.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Errkal wrote:

Falsey wrote:If she testifies that she went of her own free will then they dont have gooseberry fool to go on do they?

At her age I'm sure they would claim she is immature and doesn't know what she is saying. He is totally and completely strawberry floated.

An utter travesty. I don't agree with going off with a 15 year old with that, but if she willingly went with him it's a joke if he actually gets charged with Child Abduction.

StayDead wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Falsey wrote:If she testifies that she went of her own free will then they dont have gooseberry fool to go on do they?

At her age I'm sure they would claim she is immature and doesn't know what she is saying. He is totally and completely strawberry floated.

An utter travesty. I don't agree with going off with a 15 year old with that, but if she willingly went with him it's a joke if he actually gets charged with Child Abduction.

She is a minor, at that age you can't know what you want, so I can see why they would say its abduction, and personally I agree.

She can't know what right and decide that sort of thing for one, and he is so much older he should have known that it was wrong, very very wrong.

Errkal wrote:

StayDead wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Falsey wrote:If she testifies that she went of her own free will then they dont have gooseberry fool to go on do they?

At her age I'm sure they would claim she is immature and doesn't know what she is saying. He is totally and completely strawberry floated.

An utter travesty. I don't agree with going off with a 15 year old with that, but if she willingly went with him it's a joke if he actually gets charged with Child Abduction.

She is a minor, at that age you can't know what you want, so I can see why they would say its abduction, and personally I agree.

She can't know what right and decide that sort of thing for one, and he is so much older he should have known that it was wrong, very very wrong.

So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:

Errkal wrote:

StayDead wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Falsey wrote:If she testifies that she went of her own free will then they dont have gooseberry fool to go on do they?

At her age I'm sure they would claim she is immature and doesn't know what she is saying. He is totally and completely strawberry floated.

An utter travesty. I don't agree with going off with a 15 year old with that, but if she willingly went with him it's a joke if he actually gets charged with Child Abduction.

She is a minor, at that age you can't know what you want, so I can see why they would say its abduction, and personally I agree.

She can't know what right and decide that sort of thing for one, and he is so much older he should have known that it was wrong, very very wrong.

So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

That's the thing that I don't get. Are you honestly telling me a 15 year old girl doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? Don't make me laugh.

Also, if she either suggested it to him or mutually agreed it because they were actually in love (SHOCK HORROR, it's a possibility) then in their eyes they were doing nothing wrong.

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:

Errkal wrote:

StayDead wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Falsey wrote:If she testifies that she went of her own free will then they dont have gooseberry fool to go on do they?

At her age I'm sure they would claim she is immature and doesn't know what she is saying. He is totally and completely strawberry floated.

An utter travesty. I don't agree with going off with a 15 year old with that, but if she willingly went with him it's a joke if he actually gets charged with Child Abduction.

She is a minor, at that age you can't know what you want, so I can see why they would say its abduction, and personally I agree.

She can't know what right and decide that sort of thing for one, and he is so much older he should have known that it was wrong, very very wrong.

So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

No, I would still then say that she didn't really know what she was doing and would still consider it abduction. Even at 16 / 17 he was still far older and in a position he should never have gotten into as the teacher, whether she came on to him or not is entirely irrelevant as he should have said no, its not right, and not professional.

Until you can legally leave home this is adduction, especially when he was the teacher of the person/at the came school and so should have known better to get into this position.

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Well yes, the law says that, but could you honestly say at 15 years old you didn't know a) what you were doing and b) the difference between right and wrong?

I'm removing sex from the equation completely here as that's a hugely different situation. By the age of 15, unless you're a moron, you should and will know the difference between right or wrong and you're most certainly able to understand the things you choose to do.

In this specific case if they can't find any evidence to suggest they had intercourse and they find that she herself did agree to go to France upon her own free will, how could they possibly call this abduction? It'd be different if she was younger, but by 15 you would honestly expect people to be smart enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Depending on the news/details still to come to light, I honestly don't see any rational thinking judge to throw the book at this guy. He'll be banned from teaching sure, but I think he realised he didn't give a strawberry float about that when he went to France.

StayDead wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Well yes, the law says that, but could you honestly say at 15 years old you didn't know a) what you were doing and b) the difference between right and wrong?

I'm removing sex from the equation completely here as that's a hugely different situation. By the age of 15, unless you're a moron, you should and will know the difference between right or wrong and you're most certainly able to understand the things you choose to do.

In this specific case if they can't find any evidence to suggest they had intercourse and they find that she herself did agree to go to France upon her own free will, how could they possibly call this abduction? It'd be different if she was younger, but by 15 you would honestly expect people to be smart enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.

All true, but this will be judged by what the law says, he is going down.

Ironically enough, he'll lose a virginity of his own in prison.

Lagamorph wrote:At her age I don't think it matters if she went willingly or not. She was underage and he took her out of the country. It's probably a statutory offence.

This. The law doesn't care if she says she 'went willingly'. This is what the Age Of Consent law is all about. Children aged 16 or younger are not deemed capable in law of giving consent. Period. Whatever she says. Whatever, for that matter, he says. Doesn't matter. He will be charged with child abduction, regardless. And yes, once she's a day over the age of 16 she can legally go anywhere and do anything with anyone she wants as long as she consents. That's how it works. Might seem ridiculous. Might not. But that's the law.

Errkal wrote:

StayDead wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Well yes, the law says that, but could you honestly say at 15 years old you didn't know a) what you were doing and b) the difference between right and wrong?

I'm removing sex from the equation completely here as that's a hugely different situation. By the age of 15, unless you're a moron, you should and will know the difference between right or wrong and you're most certainly able to understand the things you choose to do.

In this specific case if they can't find any evidence to suggest they had intercourse and they find that she herself did agree to go to France upon her own free will, how could they possibly call this abduction? It'd be different if she was younger, but by 15 you would honestly expect people to be smart enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.

All true, but this will be judged by what the law says, he is going down.

Seriously. If he'd kept it in his pants for another 12 months, this would all be moot.

You've got to draw the line somewhere, and in this case, it's been drawn at 16.

TheTurnipKing wrote:

Errkal wrote:

StayDead wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Well yes, the law says that, but could you honestly say at 15 years old you didn't know a) what you were doing and b) the difference between right and wrong?

I'm removing sex from the equation completely here as that's a hugely different situation. By the age of 15, unless you're a moron, you should and will know the difference between right or wrong and you're most certainly able to understand the things you choose to do.

In this specific case if they can't find any evidence to suggest they had intercourse and they find that she herself did agree to go to France upon her own free will, how could they possibly call this abduction? It'd be different if she was younger, but by 15 you would honestly expect people to be smart enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.

All true, but this will be judged by what the law says, he is going down.

Seriously. If he'd kept it in his pants for another 12 months, this would all be moot.

Yeah, he really didn't think it through.

StayDead wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Dr. ogue Tomato wrote:So at the age of 16 everyone automatically gets the ability to reason then?

According to the law.

Well yes, the law says that, but could you honestly say at 15 years old you didn't know a) what you were doing and b) the difference between right and wrong?

The law doesn't give a gooseberry fool. There's no flexibility there. That's why it's a law.