I presume we've all heard of the recent controversy concerning the suspended sentence given to teacher Stuart Kerner following his relationship with a sixteen year old pupil.
Guardian report at tinyurl.com/lsymofn
Kerner has also lost his job and, as a convicted sex offender, will never teach again
Perhaps surprisingly given my enthusiasm for pursuing Yewtree etc cases I think the court got it about right. The judge was probably thoughtless in using the word groomed but she'd seen the girl's demeanour in the witness box and heard the recordings of the police interviews.
What does the panel think.
PS - Mods this is not Yewtree related as it's not historic and defendant is not famous. Please could it be left as a stand alone thread.
|
Much as David Starkey usually annoys me, he was the only one on the QT panel last night who agreed that a 16 year old girl could "groom" or seduce a 44 year old man. He was shouted down by the rest of the panel, even though he said that did not excuse the teacher.
The rest of the panel including the pukeworthy Anna Soubry, and Douglas Alexander, weren't honest enough even to consider the self evident possibility that the judge is right.
Starkey also got it right IMO on the freedom of speech question.
The Guardian, predictably, goes with the PC line -
goo.gl/Bf2XPb
I still think the teacher should have done time. Loco parentis and all that.
|
>> What does the panel think.
In a collusive act of that sort the senior participant carries the burden of responsibility.
Young girls can be minxes and temptresses but it isn't wise to think they really know what they're letting themselves in for. And it isn't the act of a responsible adult, let alone a teacher, to succumb to temptation and join in. The fellow's a toerag however you look at it.
Judges can be very hard on witnesses they feel to be pert and overconfident, and this lady seems to have got carried away. An appeal could change the verdict.
|
>> Judges can be very hard on witnesses they feel to be pert and overconfident, and
>> this lady seems to have got carried away. An appeal could change the verdict.
>>
I read somewhere that he was appealing the verdict.
It seems to be accepted that the offence convicted is outside the scope of the 'lenient sentence' provisions. I don't think there's any other appeal avenue the Crown might want to follow.
|
>> I read somewhere that he was appealing the verdict.
>>
>> It seems to be accepted that the offence convicted is outside the scope of the
>> 'lenient sentence' provisions.
>> I don't think there's any other appeal avenue the Crown might want to follow.
>>
From reports yesterday it appears that there is no appeal. His future still looks pretty constrained.
Judge Joanna Greenberg said the victim was "intelligent and manipulative" - and "showed no compunction" about lying when it suited her.
|
I have no doubt that a modern, streetwise, old for her years, sixteen year old girl could groom (lets be nice and call it seduce) an older guy. To try and deny otherwise is clearly showing how little grasp of life one has.
However, A teacher should be perfectly aware of it as well, and be sensible and controlled enough to resist. Banned from teaching for life? Sure thats appropriate.
Prosecuted? yes of course the law and his peers need to review the case to ensure he did not abuse his position or the girl.
Guilty? of what exactly?
Sentence? none.
|
>> Guilty? of what exactly?
Abuse of a position of trust: Sexual activity with a child per Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Provision intended to deal abuse that might be involved in the sort of teacher sixth former relationships any of us who were at school in the seventies (and I'm sure before and after) would have seen.
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s16_abuse_of_a_position_of_trust_sexual_activity_with_a_child/
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 16 Jan 15 at 15:42
|
>> >> Guilty? of what exactly?
>>
>> Abuse of a position of trust: Sexual activity with a child per Section 16 of
>> the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Provision intended to deal abuse that might be involved in
>> the sort of teacher sixth former relationships any of us who were at school in
>> the seventies (and I'm sure before and after) would have seen.
>>
>> www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s16_abuse_of_a_position_of_trust_sexual_activity_with_a_child/
>
But there was no "abuse of position of trust"
|
On further research Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act deals with touching, Section 17 covers sexual acts. The tests and penalties are however similar - max 5 years in prison.
Positions of Trust are described in S21 and appear to catch those in the defendant's situation vis a vis the child concerned. On the face of it, given there was no dispute that penetrative sex took place, he was a sitting duck for conviction. He was though acquitted of a number other offences, some of them more serious.
One might think the law is a sledgehammer to a nut but the fact is its provisions are clear and Kerner had no excuse to be unaware of them.
|
Nor by any means the first time this sort of thing has happened, in the 2 previous ones hat I know of, the teacher lost their job, quite correctly.
This is exactly why teachers, scout leaders, youth leaders etc are warned and trained against ever being 1 on 1 with teenage pupils. It is anti child abuse in part, but where teenagers are involved it is often partly to protect the adult against accusations or otherwise.
|
"Nor by any means the first time this sort of thing has happened,"
My wife, a very experienced teacher, shuddered when she read of this case. She served on a jury several years ago when a very similar case came up - male RE teacher and female pupil. My wife was the only one on the jury who refused to be bullied by the jury foreman and, in the end, the chap got off by 11 to 1 (my wife). She said that he was a slimy, bible-clutching git, and the judge was persuaded by his 'religious' background. At the end, he was looking pathetically at the jury and mouthing 'thank you. thank you'. Ugh - utter creep! Religion - pah!
Whilst I can easily accept that girls can be manipulative, such teachers as these have failed badly in their professional duties.
|
|
Fuss over nothing. The guy lost his job and that's the right outcome, a prison sentence would have been a disgrace. He shouldn't have done it, but we also seem to forget that sixteen year old girls quite often enjoy sex as much as anyone and in this case no harm was done to her - by him, anyway. Any damage would have been caused by the over reaction of police and social services trying to convince her she was some sort of inadequate who'd been preyed on by a monster.
|
One of the few things the US seems to get better than we do, I think
I mat be wrong but I believe over there if someone over 21 has sex with a teenager that's a crime whereas someone under 21 is OK, don't have a clue what the minimum age is over there.
|
>> One of the few things the US seems to get better than we do, I
>> think
>> I mat be wrong but I believe over there if someone over 21 has sex
>> with a teenager that's a crime whereas someone under 21 is OK, don't have a
>> clue what the minimum age is over there.
>>
Assuming the teenager is over the age of consent that's ridiculous if it really is the law. Do we want the state deciding who we are allowed to have sex with?
|
>> Do we want the state deciding who we are allowed to have sex
>> with?
IIRC some US state laws mandate not just with whom but how as well.
|
>>
>> >> IIRC some US state laws mandate not just with whom but how as well.
>>
I believe one or two US states have laws about which animal one can have sex with. Though I don't know if there is any age restriction.
|
>> I believe one or two US states have laws about which animal one can have
>> sex with. Though I don't know if there is any age restriction.
>
My recollection was of being told certain states or locales mandated the missionary position with anything else being contrary to God's law.
|
>> >> I believe one or two US states have laws about which animal one can
>> have
>> >> sex with. Though I don't know if there is any age restriction.
>> >
>>
>> My recollection was of being told certain states or locales mandated the missionary position with
>> anything else being contrary to God's law.
Oral sex was widely banned. All repealed in 2003 in some case "who's name escapes me" vs Texas.
|
>>>>
>> Oral sex was widely banned. All repealed in 2003 in some case "who's name escapes
>> me" vs Texas.
>>
Bill Clinton?
|
'Yo Dude! Where dem bitches at?'
(David Cameron being friendly with the US President, according to the very funny Michael Deacon in today's comic). The reply is something like:
'Really David, I can't imagine why you're using African-American slang terms so freely... (etc. etc.)'
Excellent stuff.
|
>>>I mat be wrong but I believe over there if someone over 21 has sex with a teenager that's a crime whereas someone under 21 is OK, don't have a clue what the minimum age is over there.
That strikes me as odd. You may get a couple, one of which is 21 the other is 18 and it is legal, then the 21 year old becomes 22 and the younger one 19 and it is suddenly not!?
|
>>I think the court got it about right.
He was the teacher, and her the pupil. I don't care if she laid down spreadeagled naked in front of him, he shouldn't have done it. Therefore he cannot be trusted as a teacher. And that's ok, because he will never be one again.
But a suspended sentence?
If he needed an 18 month sentence, then stick him away for 18 months. (Which I actually think would have been towards appropriate).
But why suspend it? I don't know how long it is suspended for, but it would seem to me that if losing your career, betraying the trust of all around you, and having sex with a 16yr old pupil wasn't enough to deter you, then an 18 month suspended sentence won't either.
He should have lost his career and his freedom for a life changing period of time - around 2 years.
|
>> He should have lost his career and his freedom for a life changing period of time - around 2 years.
A bit punitive there FMR. I have daughters and granddaughters too. But they aren't angels and they have to fly the nest.
I agree the teacher was utterly out of order, but he's been punished enough without having to go inside and meet big ron or whatever he's called.
Schoolteachers are a strangely infantile bunch, infantilized by their pupils. This one clearly no exception. A proper adult can say No, behave yourself girl, but some individuals are on the immature wavelength and collude.
|
>> But they aren't angels and they have to fly the nest.
And I would have a different attitude if it had not been someone in a position of responsibility paid to be responsible about her.
Had she picked on Jo Bloggs the 44 year old local barman, then that is one thing. But this was her teacher. Not some random bloke who was "a" teacher, but he was*HER* teacher.
In any case, why was it a suspended sentence?
|
>> >>
>> In any case, why was it a suspended sentence?
>>
Because it was a one off by a man of previous good character who is unlikely to offend again and no damage was by all accounts done to the girl. He lost his career and his reputation, that alone is a very heavy enough punishment in this particular case. Punishment should fit the criminal as much as it fits the crime, the impact of a prison sentence on someone not from the criminal fraternity would be far greater than the eighteen months or two years given to the recidivist mugger or burglar who accepts incarceration as par for the course.
|
>> In any case, why was it a suspended sentence?
I agree that's slightly odd. A suspended sentence is supposed to give those with a potential or repeat offending an incentive. Even without his forced removal from the teaching profession I don't think that's an issue here.
Suspect therefore that she thought suspended was minimum she could prescribe while staying in scope of Sentencing Council guidelines.
EDIt - More or less what Mr O'Reliant's cross post says.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 16 Jan 15 at 21:34
|
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914138/Teenager-dating-father-two-years-reveals-pair-planning-married-children.html
- After their [= father & daughter] wedding they plan on moving to New Jersey and having children, were adult incest is legal
:o
|
Like London buses these things seen to crop up one after another:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916635/Wife-stands-shamed-teacher-52-five-year-affair-pupil-child-her.html
As with previous case no sex before 16 but it took place while she was still a pupil so breach of trust committed. He's pleaded guilty and will be sentenced today.
|
Poor devil. One of my masters married a girl he taught, having gone out with her in the sixth form (her sixth form). Perfectly normal, really, don't understand why the law is agin it.
But the law is against it. So why would a perfectly sane person behave like that. But why do perfectly sane people have affairs (with non-minors) that they know will destroy their own lives and those of others round them and will lead to inevitable disaster.
Human frailty is an odd thing. I doubt either of the people in this thread would reoffend. It's all down to 'Chemistry' isn't it.
And where does a crush begin and love end anyway?
Certainly the first bloke isn't as 'innocent' as he would have us believe; he should have followed proper procedures and then they would have been separated. Probably he thought he could control it.
|
>> But why do perfectly sane people have affairs (with non-minors) that they know will
>> destroy their own lives and those of others round them and will lead to inevitable
>> disaster.
What's that song line?
Six foot six he stood on the ground, he weighed 235lb
But I saw that giant of a man brought down to his knees by love.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 20 Jan 15 at 19:15
|
One year in the can.
Rather harsh.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 20 Jan 15 at 19:22
|
Teacher 'Groomed' by Pupil - Manatee
