www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12137035

So this woman has sex with a 15 year old and abducts him.....yet does not receive a single day in prison.

If she had been a MALE TEACHER who had sex with a 15 year old pupil and then abducted them then I wonder how many days in jail the MALE TEACHER would receive ?

I actually agree that she gets suspended sentence or community work. This surely has to be applied to all MALE TEACHERS who are involved with 15 year old pupils as well in order for this sort of compassionate sentencing to be fair to both sexes.

BR wrote:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12137035
So this woman has sex with a 15 year old and abducts him.....yet does not receive a single day in prison.

If she had been a MALE TEACHER who had sex with a 15 year old pupil and then abducted them then I wonder how many days in jail the MALE TEACHER would receive ?



No, BR... Go back and read the article again... She was not convicted of having sex with the lad.

The starting point for sentencing if she had been would be 4 years. However, I suspect that your point about the quite large sentencing disparity between male and female (in both sexual and general crimes) may well be a fair one. It's certainly worth researching properly to form an overall view, rather than just expressing anecdotal suspicions case-by-case.

It's not hard to read between the lines of these quotes for the true story:-

"The defendant regularly escorted the complainant {who was living with foster parents} to and from rehearsals and auditions," said Ms Johnston. {prosecuting}

After being suspended... {the defendant} was warned not to have any further contact with the boy and on 13 May was served with a formal order under the Children's Act.
But on 22 May the boy asked her to give him a lift to Manchester and back, which she agreed to do, the court heard.

{The complainant} said if she did not see him he would make allegations to the police. On one occasion he said he would kill himself. There had never been any sexual contact... a "far cry from the Mrs Robinson-style relationship outlined in the Press".{Sarah Booth, defending}


Judge Michael Byrne, sentencing, accepted there was no sexual activity but told Pirie she "went past the boundaries" of her employment.

It seems miles away from the "serious breach of trust" the prosecution claimed it was, and a poor use of the criminal law and courts for all concerned.

did she really 'abduct' him or did they just go away together ?

BR wrote:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12137035

So this woman has sex with a 15 year old and abducts him.....yet does not receive a single day in prison.

If she had been a MALE TEACHER who had sex with a 15 year old pupil and then abducted them then I wonder how many days in jail the MALE TEACHER would receive ?

I actually agree that she gets suspended sentence or community work. This surely has to be applied to all MALE TEACHERS who are involved with 15 year old pupils as well in order for this sort of compassionate sentencing to be fair to both sexes.

Have you ever considered trying italics?

She holed up in a hotel room with the lad - if you do your research the full story was printed once the charges were dropped.

The charges were dropped because he was considered an "unreliable" witness even though there were third party witnesses who had seen them in bed together having sex !!!

It just seems strange when FALSE ALLEGATIONS against people like JK which have no evidence and no witnesses can lead to charges and a long(Ish) sentence - whereas in this case it was cut and dried and SHE was caught with her knickers down and in bed with a "child" who she had taken from his parents.

If someone is 16 or under and taken from their parents or carer WITHOUT permission then that counts as kidnap or abduction. Schools for instance are In Loco Parentis - BUT even schools have to get a "permission" slip signed by parents to take the child on school trips or holidays. No slip would mean the school would be sued for abduction !!

She has got off very lightly compared to a male teacher and I find this sort of disparity totally wrong.

That has to be consisency.

For instance a 75 year old was convicted of Indecent Assaults on a 7 year old girl ( and admitted them ) in the 1980s this week. He was given a suspended sentence as well and no jail. Yet we see other people who have consenting sex with say a 15 year old and jailed for 4 to 8 years and Indecent Assault itself carries a 2 year sentence if before 1990 and a 10 year sentence if after 1990 and sexual assault can carry life if after 2003 the new offence.

These massive changes which have taken an indecent assault ( touching of bum or chest or genitals ) from a 2 year max sentence in 1990 to a Life Sentence in the 2003 act - shows the Paedohysteria which has built up in the last 20 years.

I would like to see all consenting sex recognised as illegal but given a separant tariff of sentencing to someone who forces themselves say on a 7 year old. They are not the same.

Under Age sex used to carry a 2 year sentence until it was increased to 4 years in 2003. This creates the strange situation that someone can be convicted of Indecent Assault and given a sentence up to 10 years for a lesser offence than having sex with that person. The key issue being that ASSAULT says it is with force - and being under 16 means that Indecent Assault applies to even consenting sexual acts between two 15 year olds or if you are a teacher you can have a sexual relationship with an 18 year old and still be charged since 2003.

With 60% of under 16s having full sex according to the surveys and probably 90% having some sort of sexual contact with the opposite or same sex before they are of legal age basically we have criminalised 90% of kids before they have left school - and this can come back on them at any time for the rest of their life. This has to be wrong, There should be a 5 year time limit for all offences except Rape. This would stop these silly cases coming to court with no evidence which cost the taxpayer millions.

A case like JK's should never have gone to court. I do not see it was in the Public Interest around 30 years later. No evidence from that time survived to prove anything either way and to wait 30 years when JK was rich and famous in the 70s to 90s shows that there was no belief in the allegations as being true otherwise they would have been made earlier to cash in on JK's celeb status. The longer the time the harder or more impossible it is to defend against allegations with no evidence.

This CASE I have mentioned was NOT a false allegation. It was true - it had evidence but despite tha it was DROPPED and NO SENTENCE was given. This backs my view that REAL SEX ABUSE is covered up and let go - whereas the law is applied unfairly for Political and Propaganda purposes against INNOCENT people who have their lives damaged intentionally by false allegations.

This CASE is 100% PROOF that I am right about this. There is a COVER UP of REAL ABUSE taking place and the authorities are complicit in trying to cover up the real abuse if there is no "pay off" in political or financial or propaganda terms for ths system HENCE we have seen this WOMAN walk FREE and have the main charges dropped and the 75 Year old pervert walk free from abusing a 7 year old girl.

BR wrote:


She holed up in a hotel room with the lad - if you do your research the full story was printed once the charges were dropped.


Could you provide a source for us BR? Thanks.

Agree with the rest of your observations about sentencing nonsense and JK's case.

This source refers to the Hotel visits.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334121...15-year-old-boy.html

If you google this then you might find the large article that I read. It was last year and I cant remember which publication it was in.....but this article refers to all the hotel visits which took place over 3 months.

What made them worse for me was that the lad's sister ( or someone ) shared the room sometimes ( yuk !!! ) etc etc. It was a detailed account in one publication.

there really should be a time limit as there is in every other crime except (rightly) murder.

And JK's case is a good example why.

How can anyone be expected to mount a credible defense after years when a person can make an accusation and you have to defend the claims.

Also unlike other criminal charges...they state a date and the accused must provide an alibi and yet as in JK's example-that alibi isn't even considered !

It's basically the new Blackmailer's Charter.

Totally agree Veritas.

JK's convictions should be overturned. In fact all historical convictions should be reviewed to examine the evidential basis for them and whether or not "intimidation" by the Police played any part in say a guilty plea or a conviction.

At the moment no evidence is needed at all to convict someone of what is a serious offence - and yet when THERE IS EVIDENCE as in the Ballet Teacher they cant get a conviction because REAL EVIDENCE often has flaws.

I would say that 5 years should be the max after the age of consent. In other words if the girl or boy is abused ( at any age ) then they would have until they were 21 years old to make the complaint. Under age sex is 12 months - so Rape and Indecent Assault or Sexual Assault or grooming should carry a 5 year max reporting limit.

If this was done the COURTS and GOVERNMENT would save BILLIONS in court costs and prison costs. In addition it would compel people to take Sexual Abuse seriously and report it immediately rather than wait 20 years. We need to send a signal to TRUE VICTIMS that it is important for them to get justice ASAP so that they can then get on with their lives. For real victims to wait 20 years is very destructive to their lives. A 5 year reporting limit would FOCUS their minds on whether they wanted to complain. Some may not and put it behind them. Sadly for other raking up old "hurts" is counter productive. Only the lawyers benefit from all this expensive extra work based on nothing.

I wish JK would perhaps spearhead a campaign against Historical Allegations which are often FALSE by bringing in a 5 year limit for all claims except rape and then having a high evidential threshold for prosecution ( medical evidence from the time - a pregnancy etc ) of any historic rape cases.

At the moment EVERY person can be taken to court at the drop of a hat - it is a charter for blackmailers as Veritas says. It is an easy way to get back at someone. In some CUSTODY cases it becomes the battlefield - in fact very often this is the case.

It has to be stopped - too many lives are being ruined by such false or malicious prosecutions and the POLICE and courts should hang their heads in shame.

The BALLET WOMAN STORY shows that when presented with REAL EVIDENCE and a REAL CASE with witnesses the LEGAL SYSTEM does not have the bottle to put the abuser on trial or convict or even imprison. That is wrong and sends ALL the wrong signals. It says ABUSE with EVIDENCE is allowable but False Allegations are fair game. That does not protect children it hangs kids out to be abused - so no wonder there is so much familial abuse taking place in the UK. It is condoned and not prosecuted by the Social Services and police ( See BABY P as an example )

Our Country is corrupt and needs to change. I hope that JK and us on KING OF HITS can stand up for the genuinely abused and exploited and try and improve their situation by lobbying and campaigning for the LAW to be made fair on all sides so that abuse victims get swift and effective justice at their point of need and dont have to wait years. In addition that those poor people like JK who get accused decades later when all evidence is destroyed either way - do not get sucked into prison by a corrupt system.

Thanks for the link BR. However, despite what you, the Daily Mail or anyone else thinks, the lady was not convicted of having sex with the lad. Therefore a comparison of her sentence with a male who has been so convicted is a false comparison.

BUT... You make the point very well about the contrast between cases with evidence and cases that are just a fairy story. When evidence does exist it can be challenged, faults within it can be highlighted and it becomes subject to rules about how and if it can be used. A defence can be constructed. When the only evidence against someone (JK is the quintessential example) is someone telling a tale, what defence can there be but "oh no I didn't?" Thus we get a pantomine trial: hardly a respectable standard for any justice system.

Veritas's and BR's ideas about a statute of limitations and other changes are good, I think. They'll never come to pass of course, because the raison d'etre of our criminal justice system is not to enforce fairness or the legal rights of individuals or the protection of property or society etc etc. Its function is to provide the most fertile field for points scoring for the government of the day. This is why we see laws and rules changed (and ignored, when it suits) in such slapdash, kneejerk fashion so often.