Teacher: "My lesbian affair with girl, 15"

Tafdolphin wrote:OK, now I'm utterly confused. What would you have the law do in this situation Cal? Let her go back to her job with a slap on the wrist? With the information we have, which is next to none, she could have been habitually raping this poor girl.

On the other hand of course, even if it was completely consensual, she's broken laws. She needs to be punished as, you know, that's how the judicial system works.

Quoting this for the new page so he can't hide from it.

Cal wrote:

gaminglegend wrote:I don't quite agree with it, but if we look at it

Girl is 15, under age of consent.

Woman is a teacher for ***** sakes, and is an adult.

Has sexual relations with a pupil, who is under the age. Legally she's breaking the law.

And I agree with all of that. And she will pay. And then some. The law is ready to make her pay because as we all know there is no greater threat to our society than terrorists and paedophiles. As long as we all remember that - and make 'em pay - we'll all be safer. We'll lose our freedoms (and our common sense) doing it, but at least we'll all be safer.

I don't know if ur being sarcastic or not.

a) shes broke the law
b) she has to be sentenced

If we say shes okay and exempt, then it applies to every case thereafter, what about the next one, where its a man and a 15 year old girl, a man and a 14 year old girl, a woman and a 15 year old boy..etc...

Bloody plods, they criminalise all the best stuff. Next thing you know, they'll stop us from having catamites.

If that happens, I'm moving to Sri Lanka.

Sickboy wrote:Bloody plods, they criminalise all the best stuff. Next thing you know, they'll stop us from having catamites.

If that happens, I'm moving to Sri Lanka.

Didn't work for Matthew Kelly > won't work for you.

All of us had at least one teacher who we 'would'. Surely.

I told you before - Our drama teacher - Mrs dawson - used to wank off 5th years.
She was fired - i had two years left!

Wait Cal's gay

Tafdolphin wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:OK, now I'm utterly confused. What would you have the law do in this situation Cal? Let her go back to her job with a slap on the wrist? With the information we have, which is next to none, she could have been habitually raping this poor girl.

On the other hand of course, even if it was completely consensual, she's broken laws. She needs to be punished as, you know, that's how the judicial system works.

Quoting this for the new page so he can't hide from it.

Quoting this again... oh, what's the point.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:OK, now I'm utterly confused. What would you have the law do in this situation Cal? Let her go back to her job with a slap on the wrist? With the information we have, which is next to none, she could have been habitually raping this poor girl.

On the other hand of course, even if it was completely consensual, she's broken laws. She needs to be punished as, you know, that's how the judicial system works.

Quoting this for the new page so he can't hide from it.

Okay, then, just so you can be sure I'm not able to 'hide' from you...

What I would have the law do in this situation is to act proportionately. Clearly, if we are reasonable, the teacher in this case has transgressed. She has 'abused' her position of trust (this is the biggie, imo) in her inappropriate relationship with this girl. For this, there are sanctions.

Sadly, the law will not act proportionately (even though she will still, in all likelihood, receive a far more lenient sentence than a male teacher would in similar circumstances). The law will use the force of a hammer to crack a nut and lives will be ruined, where no lives were ruined before the law became involved. A career will be lost and a young girl victimised. There will be lasting highly toxic repercussions for the woman, all of her life, for the rest of her life, not to mention a lifetime of guilt and emotional upheaval for the young girl. You have to ask if this is a proportionate response. Was this teacher a sex offender? Does she belong on the same list as child rapists and serial abusers?

Tricky. But the law doesn't split hairs. Once you're on the SoR, you're scum like the rest of 'em. You're a danger to children and young women (even if you're not). Forever. There will be no rehabilitation, no second chance. She'll never teach again unless she can get herself off List 99 (historically, very rare indeed). Her professional life is over. The charge will follow her around until she's too old to work.

It's all about a proportional response to particular cases. But the law - when it comes to the paedogeddon - doesn't really 'do' proportional.

So you're against teachers not being allowed to continue their profession if they sleep with a student?

gaminglegend wrote:

Cal wrote:

gaminglegend wrote:I don't quite agree with it, but if we look at it

Girl is 15, under age of consent.

Woman is a teacher for ***** sakes, and is an adult.

Has sexual relations with a pupil, who is under the age. Legally she's breaking the law.

And I agree with all of that. And she will pay. And then some. The law is ready to make her pay because as we all know there is no greater threat to our society than terrorists and paedophiles. As long as we all remember that - and make 'em pay - we'll all be safer. We'll lose our freedoms (and our common sense) doing it, but at least we'll all be safer.

I don't know if ur being sarcastic or not.

To be honest, neither do I?

It's in plain black and white. Adult woman, you know the type that's over 18, the type that should know better, teacher, a person in a trusted position to be around and dealing with children, having an affair with a 15 year old child. It's a crime. Nothing to do with making them pay?

You would have thought by being vetted for the job in the first place that she knew she would not get away with such actions.

Gandalf wrote:You would have thought by being vetted for the job in the first place that she knew she would not get away with such actions.

Yep, those CRB checks sure come in handy. Never mind, this year, thanks to brand new legislation, sees The Bureau ready to process a further 11 million new UK adults at £64 a time. Kerchiiinnnggg!

Tafdolphin wrote:OK, now I'm utterly confused. What would you have the law do in this situation Cal? Let her go back to her job with a slap on the wrist? With the information we have, which is next to none, she could have been habitually raping this poor girl.

On the other hand of course, even if it was completely consensual, she's broken laws. She needs to be punished as, you know, that's how the judicial system works.

By law, Women can't commit rape, merely sexual assault, which carries a lesser sentence.

She's got no one to blame but herself. She was strawberry floating stupid and now she's paying for it. No sympathy, and she can take everything coming to her.

Red wrote:She's got no one to blame but herself. She was strawberry floating stupid and now she's paying for it. No sympathy, and she can take everything coming to her.

How do you know the child was stupid?!

¬_¬

Cal wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:OK, now I'm utterly confused. What would you have the law do in this situation Cal? Let her go back to her job with a slap on the wrist? With the information we have, which is next to none, she could have been habitually raping this poor girl.

On the other hand of course, even if it was completely consensual, she's broken laws. She needs to be punished as, you know, that's how the judicial system works.

Quoting this for the new page so he can't hide from it.

Okay, then, just so you can be sure I'm not able to 'hide' from you...

What I would have the law do in this situation is to act proportionately. Clearly, if we are reasonable, the teacher in this case has transgressed. She has 'abused' her position of trust (this is the biggie, imo) in her inappropriate relationship with this girl. For this, there are sanctions.

Sadly, the law will not act proportionately (even though she will still, in all likelihood, receive a far more lenient sentence than a male teacher would in similar circumstances). The law will use the force of a hammer to crack a nut and lives will be ruined, where no lives were ruined before the law became involved. A career will be lost and a young girl victimised. There will be lasting highly toxic repercussions for the woman, all of her life, for the rest of her life, not to mention a lifetime of guilt and emotional upheaval for the young girl. You have to ask if this is a proportionate response. Was this teacher a sex offender? Does she belong on the same list as child rapists and serial abusers?

Tricky. But the law doesn't split hairs. Once you're on the SoR, you're scum like the rest of 'em. You're a danger to children and young women (even if you're not). Forever. There will be no rehabilitation, no second chance. She'll never teach again unless she can get herself off List 99 (historically, very rare indeed). Her professional life is over. The charge will follow her around until she's too old to work.

It's all about a proportional response to particular cases. But the law - when it comes to the paedogeddon - doesn't really 'do' proportional.

Ok, I agree with all the bolded text. However, I can't see how the law, and only the law, is ruining lives. Even if the police, the courts etc for some unfathomable reason had not gotten involved, the teacher's career would be over. She'd be blackmarked from ever teaching again, probably with good reason. As you say, perhaps the largest facet of this is the betrayal of trust. The girl would grow up knowing what she had been a part of was wrong no matter what. Because it was wrong.

The rest of your post is baseless hyperbole. You don't define what you mean by proportional response so I assume my slap on the wrist metaphor would stick. In this case that would satisfy no-one. The public would feel a potential predator had been let off the hook, the parents would be rightly outraged (and would/will probably sue the pants off the woman on emotional distress charges anyway) and the police would appear to be applying kid gloves because the defendant is female.

Also, on what grounds should/would the teacher come off the Sex Offenders Register? She's a sex offender. That's what the list is for.

You're acting as if the teacher didn't have a choice...that she was somehow forced to start a relationship with the girl. She wasn't. In all likelihood (and I'll admit that this is conjecture) it was the teacher who started the relationship. She is the offender. She probably won't be charged as a paedophile as you're the only one to bring up that (inaccurate) term.

I too hope she gets a proportionate punishment, but I think my idea of proportionate is probably a bit harsher than yours.

(That's a pretty ramblic deconstruction but it's the end of the day)

Until it is legally permissible to do so!

It's illegal to shag one's pupils anyway, until they're 18 I think.

Lucien wrote:It worries me so many people who are intelligent enough to get a degree in a subject and want to teach, also have moral deficiencies which seem to be unchecked.

It's called human nature. News just in: it's fallible.

It's interesting how in cases of teachers "having relationships" with pupils, the pupil is always branded as the "victim".