we should be ashamed of ourselves.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7216845...ills-sentencing.html

All he had to was leave the profession and wait for 2 years.

Ryan Fisher, 29, stood trial... accused of having sex with the girl, then aged 14

The ex-pupil, now 20...


So it was six years ago, making him 23 at the time.

A man that age having sex with a willing, post pubescent 14 year old girl is totally natural. Perhaps not even uncommon.


The sex ended in February 2015, when she was 15 and had a boyfriend.

In April 2016 her mother unlocked her mobile phone, saw the messages and the relationship 'completely stopped'.

'She confronted me in my room and I told her everything that had been going on up to that point,' the witness said.


So the complainant victim survivor had been perfectly content with the arrangement and had remained on good terms with the man... until she was put in a position of embarrassment. Whereupon she plays the poor little abused schoolgirl card to save her honour, and gets some compensation money to help ease her conscience, too.


No one's suffered any tangible harm or loss here. It's just not a crime according to any reasonable and rational definition of the word. At the very most this should be a professional discipline matter, because there are additional ethical requirements for a student-teacher relationship. Using the criminal law in such a situation is grossly disproportionate.

I'm with you on this Randall; I do feel strongly that professional relationships should toe the line especially involving those under 16 and serious disciplinary action was needed but common sense means the criminal proceedings should not have kicked in.

This is terribly sad. If he did what he is accused of yes he abused his position terribly; but a young man driven to this...clearly he was also a sensitive and vulnerable man to be driven to this...A lot of evidence too of how the media/public influence in this area removes the oxygen of rehabilitation and compassion....

"Fisher denied all charges...."

"The sex ended in February 2015, when she was 15 and had a boyfriend.

In April 2016 her mother unlocked her mobile phone..., "


Did these mobile phone messages actually exist and were verified as been texted at the time stated....

I know nasty, evil criminals like "false accusers" , CPS , police, expert witnesses , family members and the likes of that tragic case of the young man raping and murdering the young girl and yet when he testified sounded so believable. So many can sound soooo credible. Many even believe their own lies.

So "Fisher denied all charges...." could be because the evidence was manufactured and then many messages. times and comments stated as fact and never verified or ALL (most) could the absolute truth and Fisher just denied the charges.

As to crime / no crime or how it is dealt with if factual is a huge issue and opinions I guess are quite varied.

At this stage the denial, dated evidence, known it's common practice and more so at the time for police not to exam obvious evidence e.g. retrieve and copy them. That phone messages get deleted etc. And defense lawyers are to varying degrees incompetent and do not challenge the evidence or also to varying decrees court rules and personnel are able to block the truth and evidence.

I read the story wondered about the denial and tool the quoted text messages as fact, verified evidence. Why would it be quoted if it did not exist thinking. But on rethinking I am curious??? Like most of these things I will never really know!!!!

Surely there is a kinder way to go about it?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Surely there is a kinder way to go about it?

Chemical castration.

Green Man wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Surely there is a kinder way to go about it?

Chemical castration.

Compulsory and dangerous medical treatment imposed against his consent? For a man who has sex with a willing post-pubescent partner? A partner who would be of legal age in most of Europe, and about half of the rest of the world.

What he did is as natural as NOT having sex with post-menopausal women. It would be bonkers to criminalise that, so how on earth can you justify such a barbaric penalty for something that God/Mother Nature/Evolution has designed us to do?