Vicar fired for kissing a girls CHEEK

That's a fact (or allegedly, if it's true, it's a fact).

Well spotted.

Yes but male teachers kissing male pupils would be less common. That is my point. And unless the pupil was actually in tears it is totally condescending to do that

I actually thought the kiss on the cheek was horrendous. It is disgusting from a feminist perspective never mind anything else. I doubt very much he would have kissed a boy. I would have felt horrendously uncomfortable if one of my teachers had kissed me.

Yeah, he would have smacked the lads arse and gone 'go on my sonnnn!, get in there!'.

You actually think this is a gender-biased action...and then feminists wonder why most people laugh at them.

The genders will get treated differently, because, GASP, they are different.

A male teacher kissing a male pupil would be unusual. This is her 'point', the truth that she wants you to grasp. You could call this a fact, it is also an observation, it doesn't really matter. She then goes on to say that for a male to kiss another male is highly humiliating for the male who is kissed. Imagine if a guy who you didn't know came up to you and kissed you on the cheek in front of all his friends at school. Would you feel humiliated?

It is not acceptable for someone holding a position such as a teacher to treat the sexes differently. Equal opportunities and all.

It is not acceptable for someone holding a position such as a teacher to treat the sexes differently. Equal opportunities and all.

I do not think it is acceptable to treat the sexes differently in this respect.

It was not a teacher, it was a local vicar. Seriously, have we gotten to the point where kissing a girls cheek is 'unacceptable'? Maybe we should also make looking each other in the eye unacceptable, 'tis a violation of my rights'.

Gender aside for a sec, thanks for pointing out this part of the story again - he is a vicar, not a teacher. Yes, kissing the girl was, given hindight, ill-advised, because touching a child is no longer seen as socially acceptable, pc, in the classroom context and in many others. Yet in the context of his church, rather than a classroom, a kiss is a blessing, and that's all it was meant as in the classroom situation.

I went to a primary school with strong local links to the church and remember the vicar shaking hands and kissing us in congratulations on ceremony prize-giving days, that was, what, 11 or 12 years ago? It wasn't defined as 'wrong' then by society, we weren't embarrassed or humiliated by it and deep pyschological bruises are showing no signs of making themselves known to us just yet. PC gone too far? Maybe. But it's kind of sadly indicative of society today...money, officers, timewasting investigations on this, something innocent, when there are actual issues out there that need tackling. The child's mother wants him removed from his post as vicar? I think the kind of minset/ideals prompting that are worth investigating more than the rev barrett's behaviour.

3. Would anybody who is writing off all priests as - now what was the quote? Something about sexually repressed - or saying they don't trust them please do a bit of reading on the Christian faith. Only Roman Catholic priests and a minority of others who choose to take vows are celibate. Anglicans, Methodists, Protestants etc etc etc are not celibate, are often married and therefore you have no grounds to insinuate that they are repressed. Incidentally is every unmarried man who is not in a sexual relationship repressed? No. And is every man who cannot find a sexual partner of his own age going to turn to paedophilia? No. I find the implication about as ridiculous as parents who won't let a gay man e.g. coach their children at football - meanwhile implying that gay = paedophile. It's ridiculous.