IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Idiot vs Idiot - the hapless new "predators" & "victims"
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Tuppenceworth |
Locked Out wrote:
Tuppenceworth wrote:
Hello, first time posting as a guest and may register and contribute more often if I'm welcome.
The teacher in this case would not have committed a crime had he known the girl in another context. Had she been a pupil at another school or simply a (girl)friend all would have been well because she's above the age of consent as Jim points out.
What renders his actions illegal is the circumstances of their acquaintance: the position of trust that our JK refers to. It's this that I have a problem with. Precisely the same actions can be legal or illegal depending on how you came to know someone, your relative social roles and so on. To me, this violates the principle that all are equal before the law because he's been punished not so much for what he's done, as for who he is.
Not good.
That's good. solid logical thought... or at least it would be were it not for the fact that the law is the law {ass it may be, but there you are...}. It's illegal for a teacher {or assistant, lab tech, whatever...} to screw one of his/her pupils if they themselves are under 18.
If the 23 year old idiot in question knew that he would also know that he was taking one hell of a risk. And if he didn't, then he truly deserves the appellation "idiot". So nice try, but no cigar.
That being said your posting, while failing to hit the mark squarely, carries sensitivity and a degree of sympathy that anyone who has ever thought "there but for the Grace of God..." would recognise and welcome. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
We are actually agreeing here. It is indeed the law which is violating the principle that all should be equal before it. The law makes identical conduct legal or illegal based on how you know someone, not the nature of the conduct itself.
Wasn't there a strange anomaly until recently allowing homosexual anal intercourse but criminalising the same act for male-female couples? That would be another example of what I'm going on about.
As a society we can, of course, choose to accept that various sections of society can behave in the same way, but be differently held to be inside or outside the law. Saudi Arabia does this by prohibiting women from driving, for example. However, this isn't consistent with the values of liberal democracy that are supposed to apply in the EU. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Tuppenceworth wrote:
Hello, first time posting as a guest and may register and contribute more often if I'm welcome.
The teacher in this case would not have committed a crime had he known the girl in another context. Had she been a pupil at another school or simply a (girl)friend all would have been well because she's above the age of consent as Jim points out.
What renders his actions illegal is the circumstances of their acquaintance: the position of trust that our JK refers to. It's this that I have a problem with. Precisely the same actions can be legal or illegal depending on how you came to know someone, your relative social roles and so on. To me, this violates the principle that all are equal before the law because he's been punished not so much for what he's done, as for who he is.
Not good.
Hello Tuppenceworth  I look forward to reading your posts.
I think the breach of trust (and law breaking) is very wrong and that this man should have lost his job and maybe be banned from teaching but to have him on the sex offender register and branded a paedophile is illogical and inaccurate.
The register will not be of any use as a warning of danger if they include instances like this,or people sunbathing nude in the garden or weeing in the street. |
|
Locked Out |
Tuppenceworth wrote:
Hello, first time posting as a guest and may register and contribute more often if I'm welcome.
The teacher in this case would not have committed a crime had he known the girl in another context. Had she been a pupil at another school or simply a (girl)friend all would have been well because she's above the age of consent as Jim points out.
What renders his actions illegal is the circumstances of their acquaintance: the position of trust that our JK refers to. It's this that I have a problem with. Precisely the same actions can be legal or illegal depending on how you came to know someone, your relative social roles and so on. To me, this violates the principle that all are equal before the law because he's been punished not so much for what he's done, as for who he is.
Not good.
That's good. solid logical thought... or at least it would be were it not for the fact that the law is the law {ass it may be, but there you are...}. It's illegal for a teacher {or assistant, lab tech, whatever...} to screw one of his/her pupils if they themselves are under 18.
If the 23 year old idiot in question knew that he would also know that he was taking one hell of a risk. And if he didn't, then he truly deserves the appellation "idiot". So nice try, but no cigar.
That being said your posting, while failing to hit the mark squarely, carries sensitivity and a degree of sympathy that anyone who has ever thought "there but for the Grace of God..." would recognise and welcome. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts. |
|
hedda |
Tuppenceworth wrote:
Hello, first time posting as a guest and may register and contribute more often if I'm welcome.
The teacher in this case would not have committed a crime had he known the girl in another context. Had she been a pupil at another school or simply a (girl)friend all would have been well because she's above the age of consent as Jim points out.
What renders his actions illegal is the circumstances of their acquaintance: the position of trust that our JK refers to. It's this that I have a problem with. Precisely the same actions can be legal or illegal depending on how you came to know someone, your relative social roles and so on. To me, this violates the principle that all are equal before the law because he's been punished not so much for what he's done, as for who he is.
Not good.
that makes sense Tuppenceworth : and although these needs to be sanctions against a person in a position of authority, what the law does now is impose life-long punishment against the man- life long registration and a ban on him taking certain types of work.
That is a total abomination. |
|
Pattaya |
Tuppenceworth wrote:
Hello, first time posting as a guest and may register and contribute more often if I'm welcome.
The teacher in this case would not have committed a crime had he known the girl in another context. Had she been a pupil at another school or simply a (girl)friend all would have been well because she's above the age of consent as Jim points out.
What renders his actions illegal is the circumstances of their acquaintance: the position of trust that our JK refers to. It's this that I have a problem with. Precisely the same actions can be legal or illegal depending on how you came to know someone, your relative social roles and so on. To me, this violates the principle that all are equal before the law because he's been punished not so much for what he's done, as for who he is.
Not good.
In general I tend to agree.I think we just need to look again at what type of punishment applies.The current system is far too heavy handed. |
|
|
|
|
