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: A child...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
veritas |
Constance Noring wrote:
I think the moral aspect is more important than the legal one in certain situations.
A friend of mine who happens to be 44 years of age has recently hooked up with a 17 year old girl.
He has now been disowned by most of his family and so has the girl by her family.
Although he isn't doing anything wrong legally I do find it all a little creepy, especially as he is a few years older than the girls father.
How the tabloids work #2
1.old man marries young filly : 
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-20...island-ceremony.html
(you can hear the romantic violins in the background while reading this)
2. stop the presses- major scoop :plain woman wears long dress so the world must be told about it. 
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-20846...ike-prostitutes.html
some people think Glenda Slagg in Private Eye is an exageration  |
|
andrew |
Black man seeing a white girl is more common then ever my step sister is married to a black man they couldn't be happier and look at ITK welfare mums many of them have a black or brown baby. It is well documented that children can produce from the age of 9.
I don't agree that Sixth Form and college teachers can be struck off with having sex with students, at the college I went to a teacher quit so he could get married to one of his students.
Let the good times roll.  |
|
Solihull Exile |
Pumpkinhead wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.
I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.
The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.
One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.
When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".
I agree with you that abuse of trust is wrong, which is why a teacher or doctor or priest as to be struck off when they are found to have done wrong, but that is a separate thing to it being a crime. Either there is equality and consistency in the law or the whole thing becomes a joke. We can't have one law for certain groups and other laws for others - therein lies folly.
Agreed young man,perhaps at best we could try them for 'abuse of trust'? But that seems a bit daft too. |
|
veritas |
Pumpkinhead wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.
I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.
The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.
One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.
When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".
I agree with you that abuse of trust is wrong, which is why a teacher or doctor or priest as to be struck off when they are found to have done wrong, but that is a separate thing to it being a crime. Either there is equality and consistency in the law or the whole thing becomes a joke. We can't have one law for certain groups and other laws for others - therein lies folly.
I'd dispute that and say that the law is used every day disproportionately against different people and is driven more by media interference and the false perceptions of community "standards".
The Netherlands ( a basically very conservative country) had the most sensible laws-especially in sex matters- for decades that allowed a whole range of factors to be taken into account including whether there really had been 'predatory' seduction (by either party..younger or older). how the relationship was conducted..if the parties were genuinely in love and so on.
Basically they did their best to treat such matters as what they were..often highly sensitive matters of the heart..human frailty...or rape etc, and then penalties (if any) were tempered by the result.
sadly, just like their dope smoking laws the mentality of the EU is reducing such things to a more penalised system. |
|
Pumpkinhead |
JK2006 wrote:
Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.
I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.
The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.
One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.
When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".
I agree with you that abuse of trust is wrong, which is why a teacher or doctor or priest as to be struck off when they are found to have done wrong, but that is a separate thing to it being a crime. Either there is equality and consistency in the law or the whole thing becomes a joke. We can't have one law for certain groups and other laws for others - therein lies folly. |
|
|
|
|
