Married Teacher Who Gave 14-Year-Old Student Oral Sex Allowed Back In Classroom

BowdonUK said:
Well the law doesn't see those 2 cases as any different. It gives the same range of possible outcomes in both cases. The eventual sentence is decided by the judge for each individual case.

I don't think outcome of sentence can be a valid argument on the seriousness of a crime as we see sentences vary a lot for all crimes. For example 2 burglars robbed 2 houses seperately yet both can receive different sentences. It doesn't mean that one crime was less serious than the other.
Click to expand...
Previous sentencing informs future cases and there are appeals processes available when sentencing is inconsistent.

I think you meant to say statutory law doesn't discriminate against teenagers and pre pubescent but having not read the New York statute books I can't confirm that statement is correct either.
 
A few years back where i live we had a wee scandal of a teacher doing some extra "homework" with one of her pupils.
She was recently married and very tidy, when it all came out she got the boot fairly hard, was embarrassed and humiliated in the press, got divorced and booted out the house and the last time i saw her she worked part time in a bar.
All for a bit of action on a 15yr old who prob thought all 6 of his numbers had come in. Must have been a bit of a shock for her other half, imagine your wife wanting some near kids dingaling more than your recently married one.

Anyway, dunno what she does now. prob a hooker or something lol.
 
Hellsmk2 said:
Fact: 14 is a child. Doesn't matter whether the kid is 1 or 17.
Click to expand...

Wait...are you seriously arguing that there is no difference between a 1 year old and a 17 year old? You're really not aware that a person changes between 1 year old and 17 years old?

Also, it's not a fact that a 14 year old is a child. It would be extremely rare and probably pathological for a 14 year old to be a child. At that age they should be an adolescent.

At one point, law in the UK defined 30 as the age of legal majority for women. Do you think that all female people in the UK under 30 at that time were children, no different to a 1 year old child? The age of legal majority was then reduced to 21 for women (same as for men at that time). Do you think that every female person in the UK between the age of 21 and 29 at that time instantly transformed from a child to an adult because of that law? Is there any other magic you believe in?

Pretending that major biological changes occur instantaneously solely by decree of people with enough power is believing in magic. It's also delusional, since the process obviously takes a fair few years. Even if you believe wizards are doing it, it's still obviously not instantaneous.

If you were to talk about law and the age(s) of majority, that would be a different matter. But when you deliberately mislabel it and proclaim that untrue things are facts, the main thing you're doing is demonstrating that you have no confidence in your own position or no integrity. If you had both, you'd be content to let your position stand on its own merits.

Personally, I agree with 16 as the age of consent for sex. I think it's probably the best pragmatic compromise solution. We need a fixed limit that will stick as a matter of clarity and practicality in law, despite the fact that it's not realistic because people mature at different rates. But I don't pretend that people remain completely unchanged from birth to 16 and then a magic spell cast by the government instantaneously changes them from children to adults. That's not how reality works.
 
Angilion said:
Wait...are you seriously arguing that there is no difference between a 1 year old and a 17 year old? You're really not aware that a person changes between 1 year old and 17 years old?

Also, it's not a fact that a 14 year old is a child. It would be extremely rare and probably pathological for a 14 year old to be a child. At that age they should be an adolescent.

At one point, law in the UK defined 30 as the age of legal majority for women. Do you think that all female people in the UK under 30 at that time were children, no different to a 1 year old child? The age of legal majority was then reduced to 21 for women (same as for men at that time). Do you think that every female person in the UK between the age of 21 and 29 at that time instantly transformed from a child to an adult because of that law? Is there any other magic you believe in?

Pretending that major biological changes occur instantaneously solely by decree of people with enough power is believing in magic. It's also delusional, since the process obviously takes a fair few years. Even if you believe wizards are doing it, it's still obviously not instantaneous.

If you were to talk about law and the age(s) of majority, that would be a different matter. But when you deliberately mislabel it and proclaim that untrue things are facts, the main thing you're doing is demonstrating that you have no confidence in your own position or no integrity. If you had both, you'd be content to let your position stand on its own merits.

Personally, I agree with 16 as the age of consent for sex. I think it's probably the best pragmatic compromise solution. We need a fixed limit that will stick as a matter of clarity and practicality in law, despite the fact that it's not realistic because people mature at different rates. But I don't pretend that people remain completely unchanged from birth to 16 and then a magic spell cast by the government instantaneously changes them from children to adults. That's not how reality works.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not saying a 1 year old is anything like a 17 year old. That would be stupid.

However, a 17 Year old is still a child. Their bodies are undergoing massive change, their brains are not fully developed, they are chemically unbalanced, have a much greater naivety and immaturity. All of these are undisputed facts and should not change based on some paedophiles dream of molesting kids.

Have you actually spent time with a bunch of teenagers? They'll convince you they know it all, yet still manage to make some really really bad decisions. How do, and every other responsible adult know this? We've all been through that phase.
 
Hellsmk2 said:
Of course I'm not saying a 1 year old is anything like a 17 year old. That would be stupid.

However, a 17 Year old is still a child. Their bodies are undergoing massive change, their brains are not fully developed, they are chemically unbalanced, have a much greater naivety and immaturity. All of these are undisputed facts and should not change based on some paedophiles dream of molesting kids.

Have you actually spent time with a bunch of teenagers? They'll convince you they know it all, yet still manage to make some really really bad decisions. How do, and every other responsible adult know this? We've all been through that phase.
Click to expand...

Adults still make really bad decisions too. Hence this thread. It's a strange one where the law seems to apply some very arbitrary ages.
 
Hellsmk2 said:
Of course I'm not saying a 1 year old is anything like a 17 year old. That would be stupid.
Click to expand...

You make no distinction between the two, completely ignore all development between the two and state that any different between the two doesn't matter.

However, a 17 Year old is still a child.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. They're an adolescent or an adult. Probably an adult by that age. They might or might not have reached the age of legal majority (depending on time, place and possibly variations in that age for different things), but that's a completely different thing.

Their bodies are undergoing massive change, their brains are not fully developed, they are chemically unbalanced, have a much greater naivety and immaturity. All of these are undisputed facts and should not change based on some paedophiles dream of molesting kids.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how you get from someone understanding very basic biology to them being a paedophile dreaming of molesting kids. I'm interested in the "reasoning" you use to reach that conclusion.

Also, I'm interested in what "reasoning" you use to reach the conclusion that everyone changes from a child not different to a 1 year old in any way that matters to a responsible adult at whatever age the place they live in decrees at that time. Do you think it happens at dawn on their xth birthday? At midnight, a magical transformation like Cinderalla's carriage and horses? Or exactly x years after the precise time of day they were born?

Have you actually spent time with a bunch of teenagers? They'll convince you they know it all, yet still manage to make some really really bad decisions. How do, and every other responsible adult know this? We've all been through that phase.
Click to expand...

I work with some teenagers. I suppose some of them might be offended by your ludicrous exaggerations and negative stereotyping, but I think they'd probably just laugh at how silly you're being.

I find the idea that every individual makes really really bad decisions until they're 18 and then magically stops doing so very silly. Reality is not like that. Maturing is a process, not an instantaneous magical transformation. Even in animals that do have radical transformations, e.g. caterpillars/butterflies, don't do it instantaneously after a fixed amount of time alive.

EDIT: I still want to know if you think female people 29 years old in the UK in the 1920s were children not different to a 1 year old in any way that matters. You've said that a 1 year old doesn't differ in any way that matters from a person <1 year under the legal age of majority for anything and 30 was the final legal age of majority for women in the UK in the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Adults still make really bad decisions too. Hence this thread.
Click to expand...

That's why the law exists, to help adults who might be morally bankrupt make good decisions which were deemed the best for society. I mean at school a lot of 14 years will do whatever a teacher (authority figure) tells them for fear of punishment and because they're seen as morally upstanding characters. Whether the kid is 3 or 14 the law is in place to protect children and any adult who knowingly breaks it should be punished for the good of society and kept away from jobs involving children in the future.

A child is legally defined as any person under the age of 18 in England as per the NSPCC website.
 
Angilion said:
You make no distinction between the two, completely ignore all development between the two and state that any different between the two doesn't matter.



No, they aren't. They're an adolescent or an adult. Probably an adult by that age. They might or might not have reached the age of legal majority (depending on time, place and possibly variations in that age for different things), but that's a completely different thing.



Please tell me how you get from someone understanding very basic biology to them being a paedophile dreaming of molesting kids. I'm interested in the "reasoning" you use to reach that conclusion.

Also, I'm interested in what "reasoning" you use to reach the conclusion that everyone changes from a child not different to a 1 year old in any way that matters to a responsible adult at whatever age the place they live in decrees at that time. Do you think it happens at dawn on their xth birthday? At midnight, a magical transformation like Cinderalla's carriage and horses? Or exactly x years after the precise time of day they were born?



I work with some teenagers. I suppose some of them might be offended by your ludicrous exaggerations and negative stereotyping, but I think they'd probably just laugh at how silly you're being.

I find the idea that every individual makes really really bad decisions until they're 18 and then magically stops doing so very silly. Reality is not like that. Maturing is a process, not an instantaneous magical transformation. Even in animals that do have radical transformations, e.g. caterpillars/butterflies, don't do it instantaneously after a fixed amount of time alive.

EDIT: I still want to know if you think female people 29 years old in the UK in the 1920s were children not different to a 1 year old in any way that matters. You've said that a 1 year old doesn't differ in any way that matters from a person <1 year under the legal age of majority for anything and 30 was the final legal age of majority for women in the UK in the 1920s.
Click to expand...

While I in no way want to totally disparage Hellsmk2’s take on this, I’m inclined to think that Angilion has put a lot of intelligent thought and reasoning into his contribution to this thread, indeed, as he seems to always do.
 
mmj_uk said:
That's why the law exists, to help adults who might be morally bankrupt make good decisions which were deemed the best for society.
Click to expand...

That's what all law is always for, for varying values of "deemed the best for society".

I mean at school a lot of 14 years will do whatever a teacher (authority figure) tells them for fear of punishment and because they're seen as morally upstanding characters.
Click to expand...

When I was 14 there were a number of teachers (and other people) I would have had sex with if I had had the chance. Not from fear of punishment. From lust. Which is normal at that age. Because adolescents are not children. Good ways of dealing with an issue require accurate understanding of the issue.

Whether the kid is 3 or 14 the law is in place to protect children and any adult who knowingly breaks it should be punished for the good of society and kept away from jobs involving children in the future.
Click to expand...

Agreed, apart from referring to an adolecent as a kid. Different stage of development.

A child is legally defined as any person under the age of 18 in England as per the NSPCC website.
Click to expand...

So...you're fine with children having sex, getting married and suchlike? If you really think that definition is correct, you are.

I think that definition is not correct. Anyone under 18 in England is (by current law) a minor. Not necessarily a child.
 
Roar87 said:
Can we save the word Paedophile for the actual Paedophiles, she slept with someone who's legally a minor but who is obviously sexually mature. There are literally sick people attracted to actual children under the age of 11/12, you shouldn't equate this with that.
Click to expand...

Here, here. Lets focus the legal energy on the sickos. Maybe even just condemn them in an mental home or something.

Sex with a minor is a different thing. Still illegal, still wrong, but a different thing entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom