Five and a half years, has the world gone mad?
I realise this is a controversial subject, but there must be millions of women out there whose first sexual experience was as a pre-sixteen year old and invariably with someone older who have no regrets whatsoever. Now I realise there are other circumstances here and the guy crossed a line he shouldn't have, including running away with her even though she apparently was going to go on her own anyway, but if he deserved a term that long how much should Stuart Hall have got? Not to mention repeat burglars and muggers who walk free with a community sentence countless times before finally being banged up, often for months rather than years.
And can somebody explain to the media exactly what a paedophile is? Even the quality papers are jumping on that bandwagon because they are too scared of the new puritan witch hunt to do otherwise.
|
I think it's crazy. Paedophile is an emotive word, and a nubile fifteen year old is hardly a child. Of course it was a field day for the red tops.
The guy was an idiot to have had sexual relations with one of his pupils, but he doesn't deserve the opprobrium and sentence meted out to him. The age of consent in other EU countries varies from 13 to 16. It seems that sexual misdemeanours warrant a harsher sentence than grievous bodily harm in most cases. The only harm done in this case appears to be to the parents and outraged citizens.
|
The age of consent in other EU countries varies from 13 to 16.
Maybe so, but it wouldn't have mattered if she'd been 18 or even 22; he had a duty of care to her as a student, just as a doctor has to a patient, and a sexual relationship is entirely incompatible with that. You can't use 'move along, nothing to see' on this one.
|
>> Maybe so, but it wouldn't have mattered if she'd been 18 or even 22; he
>> had a duty of care to her as a student, just as a doctor has
>> to a patient, and a sexual relationship is entirely incompatible with that. You can't use
>> 'move along, nothing to see' on this one.
>>
Teacher / pupil law / rules
If the pupil is over 16 and at another school there is no offence.
If the student is over 18 at any school/college there is no offence.
The recent court case was over her being under 16, heading off to France without parental permission & at the same school as the teacher.
|
I figured he wouldn't get less than 3 years and might get as many as seven.
You can't help feeling a bit sorry for the spoilt, childish, sentimental twozzer while utterly despising him for his idiotic and immoral behaviour. Seems to have a mental age of about seven. Not unknown among schoolteachers of course. But no excuse really.
The girl, described as 'troubled' but clearly a bit naughty and up for it, seems more adult than he does (witness their alleged exchange in court which encapsulates their whole relationship). He was still coming on like Romeo and she was apologising for leading him astray and destroying his life.
At least he's not a nonce so the other prisoners won't really want to do him in.
|
I'm completely torn over this one.
As an ex-teacher I have to condemn his unprofessional behaviour, yet to label him a paedophile seems wrong (and playing to the sensationalist press), on the basis that technically the girl was under-age when they started having sex.
Just supposing their relationship survives - what will that prove? That what they did wasn't that bad after all?
Yes, I too thought that four and half years for the underage sex and one year for abduction (which is surely also quite hard to accept) seems an odd ratio.
|
>>
>> Just supposing their relationship survives - what will that prove? That what they did wasn't
>> that bad after all?
>>
It would make a lovely story if they get married when he comes out and live happily ever after.
Then when they are a contented old couple, their grandchildren will ask, "Grandad, is it true you were once a paedophile?"
|
During WW2, a certain officer was investigated by the FBI. He had a 'record' for being caught in a compromising situation with an 'underage' girl.
He later married her. Her name was Enola Gay.
|
Enola Gay was the pilot of the A-bomb plane's mother.
I assume you mean WW1?
Although the Feds weren't around in WW1.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 21 Jun 13 at 19:02
|
Lygonos, apologies - was WW2, was Tibbets. Wife was Lucy.
Will find the link, and post later.
|
I kept hearing the word paedophile on the radio, paedo to me is one of those hideous low life's who fiddle with little children and should be shot without fuss, to tar this idiot with the label is not justice.
No doubt the current highly publicised child protection crusade has influenced this sentence.
|
You are a teacher, do not have sex with one of your pupils.
Not really a complex matter is it?
Perhaps she was open to it, perhaps encouraged it. But she was underage, he was her teacher, and he had sex with a minor.
Sex against her will would have been worse, but not much else would have been.
I'm not sure paedophile is the correct description, but he's a teacher, he slept with one of his pupils, and she was underage.
Did he know he was a teacher?
Did he know she was underage?
Did he know that it was against he law to have sex with her?
So, as far as I can see its a "throwing away the key" offence.
Had he been some bloke who picked her up in the bar, then perhaps the treatment should be different.
I would at least injure any teacher who had sex with one of my girls while they are underage.
|
p.s. Stuart Hall's sentance was inapproriate IMO. Nothing (if he was innocent) or life (if he was guilty of assaulting children as young as 9).
And in my world life would mean death.
|
Interesting, was only saying the same last night to the other half. Paedophile definition is/was the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, which this young lady certainly wasn't. If this (stupid) man is a paedophile, that makes every 16 year old whose had a bit of fun with a young lady a few months younger a paedophile too! And I don't believe that is what is implied when we use the term correctly.
Idiotic behaviour though, but the usual storm of hysteria about not very much at all.
|
|
Although inadequate Stuart Hall's sentence was the maximum allowed, as he had to be sentenced under the guidelines for the time of the offence. The case has been referred to the court of appeal for review/ increase though.
|
|
To call him a paedophile is a bit much in my opinion.He should have let the parents know where he was with the girl.Fifteen months for the old chap,can't remember his name now Stuart something is deplorable.He is a paedophile messing about with a nine year old.Shame on you mister.
|
He was a teacher. Entrusted to look after our CHILDREN.
A fifteen year old girl is a CHILD.
I matters not if she was:
- sexually aware
- led him on
- consented
He was entrusted to look after her, teach her and help her make her way into the world with more knowledge.
Sleeping with her and then taking her without her parents consent to a foreign country (abducting her.. she can't authorise the travel or the sexual activity) is hardly doing that is it.
Particularly as any rational adult should know that children growing up sometime think they are mature when they are not...and should be left alone to come to terms with all this.
The only thing I think wrong, is labelling him as a Paedophile. He is an Ephebophile, which isn't quite as bad.
|
Well, Mohamed is supposed to have married a lass of 9 and consummated the union.
Look where that got him!
|
|
Where does it say that Roger?
|
>> UKIPedia... :-)
>>
That's far too sharp for 8pm on a Fri after a couple of glasses of red RP...;-)
|
He was a berk. No idea how he thought he wouldn't get caught. Clearly not fit to teach our kids.
How you reconcile 5 years for this and 15 months for Stuart Hall is also beyond me.
|
>>Enola Gay was the pilot of the A-bomb plane's mother.
I'm having problems with that sentence.
|
>> I'm having problems with that sentence.
Not my finest utterance I guess!
Enola Gay was the name of the mother of the pilot of Enola Gay.
Does that help?
;-)
|
>>Enola Gay was the pilot of the A-bomb plane's mother.
>>Enola Gay was the name of the mother of the pilot of Enola Gay.
All the same words, just not in the same order, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe.
;>)
|
I'm with Beest and Marko on this to a large extent but ... the ole woman says the sentence is too harsh when you consider some cretin could go out tonight and beat someone to within an inch of their life so that they'll never walk properly again, and end up with a lesser sentence.
Plus, don't forget .. the gump Forrest's sentence doesn't end when he is released from prison.
|
From the pictures of the lass, she is (a) attractive, (b) well developed and (c) rather voluptuous.
His attraction to her is understandable, but what she saw in him is less obvious.
I guess her emotional development did not match her bodily one.
I think that the sentence is harsh. A couple of years would destroy him just as much. A custodial sentence is certainly deserved, but what about her? She gets off scot free and it does take two to tango.
|
>> She gets off
>> scot free and it does take two to tango.
>>
She is the child???? The victim.
She's the one he should have been respecting by ignoring any 'signs' and leaving them as immature learning.
Even if she happened to be the most mature 15 year old out there....she still should have been left alone to develop and make her own way in the world without the teacher sharking in.
|
|
I'm wondering which red-top will publish his wife's story and how much she'll get.
|
|
However much, she deserves it.
|
|
Also under the nauseating by-line "Now Mrs Forrest opens her heart to the Daily Yuck"
|
>>She gets off scot free and it does take two to tango.
She didn't have sex with a minor she as morally, contractually and legally entrusted to look after.
She was an immature idiot. That goes unpunished in this world [regrettably].
|
>> She was an immature idiot. That goes unpunished in this world [regrettably].
Not really, the teacher was the same and he got punished.
|
I see they are now considering that they think he may have influenced her to change her evidence.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23008649
|
>>
>> >> She was an immature idiot. That goes unpunished in this world [regrettably].
>>
>> Not really, the teacher was the same and he got punished.
>>
Yes...because he was an adult, had been for 10 years and was employed in a profession where every step of the way from training, to first placement to ongoing employment it is glaringly obvious you are in a position of trust and authority...and everyone within that set up knows it is a big no-no to overstep the mark and have any kind of close relationship, let alone sexual relations with one of the children.
Everyone knows a doctor shouldn't shark in on a vulnerable patient.
Everyone knows a police officer shouldn't with a vulnerable victim.
The difference in this case is everyone knows it shouldn't happen..AND..she's under age and the law defines her as a child.
Can you imagine the hoo-hah if a GP ran off with a 15 year old patient...or a police officer did with a 15 year old missing person? Most of you would be wanting more than 5.5 years imprisonment.
|
>> Can you imagine the hoo-hah if a GP ran off with a 15 year old
>> patient...or a police officer did with a 15 year old missing person? Most of you
>> would be wanting more than 5.5 years imprisonment.
And you know whats worse? He took to her to France in a coach. Thats got to be worth an extra year.
|
>> The difference in this case is everyone knows it shouldn't happen..AND..she's under age and the
>> law defines her as a child.
>>
>> Can you imagine the hoo-hah if a GP ran off with a 15 year old
>> patient...or a police officer did with a 15 year old missing person? Most of you
>> would be wanting more than 5.5 years imprisonment.
>>
Where's Pat?....She gave some good balance last time I got on my soapbox about this subject..and made me think.
|
>>
>> Where's Pat?....She gave some good balance last time I got on my soapbox about this
>> subject..and made me think.
>>
An interesting question was raised by a female member on another forum. Why wasn't the girl prosecuted too as she was over the age of criminal responsibility and willingly complicit in the relationship? The point being that there are girls who will instigate a sexual relationship with an older person in the knowledge that if it all comes on top they will be protected by anonymity and safe from any legal comeback while the guy is hammered, so perhaps letting them know they share a risk of criminal proceedings should they be found to have willingly embarked on the tryst without any undue pressure from the older party might make them think twice themselves. Remember some prosecutions for unlawful intercourse have involved sixteen year old boys and girls of fifteen. One such was interviewed on Jeremy Vine yesterday after serving a prison sentence for his sins.
Not necessary my own view (I'd have to think long and hard about it) but food for thought.
|
Spot on Wp.
As an ex-teacher I always used the rule that any relationship with a pupil should be that of a good father to son or daughter.
Oh, and as an additional consideration - never be alone with either a boy or girl pupil.
Oh and as another consideration, never touch any pupil - not even a pat on the shoulder to say "well done!".
Oh and another consideration, never show any favouritism to any pupil.
Oh and another thing..............
I'm sure there are many others!!
But maybe seeing them as one of your own children is the most important - no matter if they are 11 year-olds or 18 year old A level students - they are still "children" that you are teaching and guiding, hoping to teach them to make sensible, considered judgements whether it is in your subject or in general life.
P
|
>> Oh and as another consideration, never touch any pupil - not even a pat on
>> the shoulder to say "well done!".
And there's a real problem there.
What do you do if they're a safety risk in a laboratory or about to run out of the class and create mayhem elsewhere?
Mrs B, peripatetic science supply, is reluctant to do practical stuff for reason of former and has an outstanding complaint for a 'restraining hand' when kids tried to leave her class.
|
B,
Awful, and no doubt, very worrying situation for Mrs B to be in. However, I'm sure all teachers have been in the same place! I certainly have! She may have to rely on "the good kids" in the class who may not have said/ done anything at the time but will have agreed with her actions because, at heart, they want to learn in a good atmosphere. In private, and on being interviewed by the relevant "authorities" they will back her. I was once threatened with prosecution by some parents who accused me of "pinning their son to the wall, throwing him to the ground and kneeling on his neck to prevent him moving" -assault and battery or GBH they said (can't remember exactly).
When they found out from other pupils that I had only done that when I had witnessed their son throw a totally unprovoked punch at another pupil which broke his jaw in several places and had splattered blood all over a wall they went strangely quiet. They later wrote me a very apologetic letter, but the weeks following their "charge" was very worrying - I faced losing my job.
My wife faced a similar accusation to Mrs B - restraining a child trying to leave her lesson - again other "good kids" gave evidence that she was only using "reasonable restraint" - child was suspended for 3 weeks and warned over future conduct.
P
Let me know how Mrs B gets on - by PM if you like to avoid taking over thread with personal things
|
Phil,
Thanks for that. We're waiting to hear. Most likely outcome is this one school instructing her not to 'darken their doors' again. Given the lack of support, poor cover material and general indiscipline she's no intention of going back.
She does though need to make sure her agency bat for her in terms of any reputational issues. NAS/UWT will be involved if it goes further.
|
>> Thanks for that. We're waiting to hear. Most likely outcome is this one school instructing
>> her not to 'darken their doors' again. Given the lack of support, poor cover material
>> and general indiscipline she's no intention of going back.
>>
>> She does though need to make sure her agency bat for her in terms of
>> any reputational issues. NAS/UWT will be involved if it goes further.
>>
B,
As you know my wife is a teacher...and although primary and rural, i'm now well aware of some of the pitfalls.
Tell your missus your usual combatant on here sends his and his wife's regards, as she'll no doubt be well worried.
|
"...seeing them as one of your own children is the most important - no matter if they are 11 year-olds or 18 year old A level students - they are still "children" that you are teaching and guiding..."
No. Sorry, Phil, I think you're wrong.
I would cuddle my kids when they hurt themselves, would bandage their cuts and bruises, would go into their bedrooms at home and would be told and would say all sorts of things that were intended for family ears alone.
You cannot do those things if you're a teacher. For a start, you must be on your guard and cover your back - you cannot afford to be naively affectionate, for example. You must not put yourself in a position where your words and/or actions can be misconstrued. You may be "in loco parentis", but only insofar as being a responsible, caring adult is concerned. You must keep a distance. You must not get emotionally involved - either affection or anger is highly dangerous. Only in exceptional circumstances should you touch a pupil - to prevent specific undesirable situations from occurring.
Fortunately in my teaching career I managed to avoid anything nasty. But perhaps the most unnerving experience was while sitting quietly marking books during one lunchtime break. I was interrupted by a student suddenly appearing, kissing me on the cheek, and immediately disappearing again. It was a 12-year-old boy. The whole thing took place in a vacuum - no hint of anything before it happened, no subsequent reference to it, by word or behaviour. But I was on my guard, as you may imagine. The whole thing was rather frightening, actually.
In case you're wondering where I'm coming from, before my retirement I was Head of English in a comprehensive school.
|
>> In case you're wondering where I'm coming from, before my retirement I was Head of
>> English in a comprehensive school.
You continue to do your job. I read that and my brain said "Shouldn't that be AT a school"?
So I looked it up and I was wrong, and you, of course, were right. So now I know the difference between the usages of "at" and "in"; thanks for that.
|
>> So now I know the difference between the usages of "at" and "in"; thanks for
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
At a public school, in a comprehensive.
|
FocalPoint,
I hope you will recognise the tongue-in-cheek nature of the letter below!!!
Dear Head of English,
As is common with English teachers today, you have taken a single quote out of context and used it to build an argument.
You quote me as saying
"seeing them as one of your own children is the most important - no matter if they are 11 year-olds or 18 year old A level students - they are still "children" that you are teaching and guiding..."
and of course I did say that. On that basis you say that
"I would cuddle my kids when they hurt themselves, would bandage their cuts and bruises, would go into their bedrooms at home and would be told and would say all sorts of things that were intended for family ears alone."
I can't argue with that but it seems that you haven't bothered to read the whole question/statement.
I also said that:-
"Oh, and as an additional consideration - never be alone with either a boy or girl pupil.
Oh and as another consideration, never touch any pupil - not even a pat on the shoulder to say "well done!".
Oh and another consideration, never show any favouritism to any pupil.
Oh and another thing..............
I'm sure there are many others!!"
So have I suggested that I would do the things that you mention?
"cuddle my kids(pupils)"
"go into their bedrooms"say all sorts of things that were intended for family ears alone."?
I don't think there was any suggestion that I would; in fact I suggest exactly the opposite. Was I really "wrong"?? Perhaps I didn't give entirely the right impression but I was merely trying to say that one should regard pupils as your children and not engage in the sort of activities that Forrest engaged in.
Yours sincerely,
Phil W
Head of Geography
(You know Geog teachers - always the stroppy know-it-alls in the staff room)
Please feel free to correct any spelling/punctuation errors (Do English teachers do that nowadays, or is it left to old-fashioned Geog teachers???)
By the way, my Dad was a Head of English and he was bigger than you and my brother is a Head of English and IS bigger than you - he's put on a lot of weight recently!!!
Big,big smiley :-)
Best wishes
P
|
Dear Philip (if I may call you that),
I did indeed selectively quote from your post, but the point about seeing a student as one of your own children is something you stressed, though it doesn't sit very well alongside your advice not to touch a child and so on. You were giving mixed messages and I disagreed with the bit that seems to me the most tendentious.
I still think that seeing a student as one of your own children implies some kind of emotional view of him or her, whereas I believe the relationship between teacher and student should be strictly professional. That doesn't mean it should be cold-blooded, and I can't imagine how an English teacher could deal with literature (which has been described as "character in action") without encouraging and exploring emotional responses.
Best regards,
Chris
P.S. I was a pedagogue, not a pedant.
|
|
Yee-hah...been waiting for this since my childhood...the battle of the teachers...;-)
|
Behave yourself, that child at the back! I bet your name is Kevin, too. Another peep and it's lunch-time litter-picking for you.
:-))
|
Bad luck Wp - see my reply to Chris! ;-)
Had enough battles with teachers when I was one!!
Phil
|
Chris
"I believe the relationship between teacher and student should be strictly professional. That doesn't mean it should be cold-blooded"
Couldn't agree more - maybe my point didn't get across because I expressed it badly! I blame my English teacher (my Dad!!!!)
Regards,
Phil
|
>> A custodial sentence is certainly deserved
Right at the start I said he'll get locked away until she turns 18.
He got 66 months, will serve 33, already done 9 months on remand so will be out in June 2015. The girl's 18th birthday is in May or June 2015 - sounds like the penalty was decided first and the subsequent paperwork tweaked to fit it.
|
I see others are jumping on the bandwagon, allegedly claiming he tried to groom them.
Strange this 'evidence' wasn't presented in court?
|
>> I see others are jumping on the bandwagon, allegedly claiming he tried to groom them.
>>
>>
>> Strange this 'evidence' wasn't presented in court?
>>
Every girl he ever smiled at must now be wondering how much a tabloid would pay for her story.
|
Jeremy Forrest - Robbie34
