Teacher struck off for sex with pupil on plan

Watch
karl pilkington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Physics teacher 28 had sex with sixth form pupil on plane inside toilet (they went bareback). Thoughts?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I love how you included the bareback comment in brackets.
5
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
I love how you included the bareback comment in brackets.
:five:

I couldn't work out whether it was because 'bareback' was crucial information necessary to the plot but slightly ancillary, or whether it was a salacious aside.
1
reply
jennyhumphrey
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
no proof. im sure she knows sex is bad for sixth formers
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Reality Check)
:five:

I couldn't work out whether it was because 'bareback' was crucial information necessary to the plot but slightly ancillary, or whether it was a salacious aside.
I'm trying to work out whether she was struck off because it was on a plane. Perhaps if she had waited until getting home she would still be in a job.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by jennyhumphrey)
no proof. im sure she knows sex is bad for sixth formers
Her conduct, and the way in which she attempted to cover it up and hush the child involved has led to her being banned with no possibility of a review. In other words the paedo slapper has been banned from the profession permanently. Apparently she was more concerned with her future career and reputation than she was the harm she'd caused to the children concerned.

She taught at Bristol Technology College - they tried to suppress details of the school being leaked, but this was pretty futile.


https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...restricted.pdf
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Good bloke)
I'm trying to work out whether she was struck off because it was on a plane. Perhaps if she had waited until getting home she would still be in a job.
Or was it because she was in Club and the kids were in Economy - a breach of Turning Left.
1
reply
JordLndr
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Well in.
0
reply
Nathan Scott
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
The comments on the article are pretty disturbing. The majority seems to think because the students were over the age of 16 it was legal and okay - when did people become so daft
0
reply
bones-mccoy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Nathan Scott)
The comments on the article are pretty disturbing. The majority seems to think because the students were over the age of 16 it was legal and okay - when did people become so daft
Wouldn't expect anything less from Daily Mail readers
2
reply
Whiskey&Freedom
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Don't understand what the problem is. There is nothing wrong with getting a bit frisky with a hot older woman.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
The age of consent is 16 in the UK, but only for partners 16-18. A bit of confusion is understandable tbh.
Not quite. The age of consent is 16, unless the older person is in a position of trust (e.g. a teacher) when it is 18.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
The age of consent is 16 in the UK, but only for partners 16-18. A bit of confusion is understandable tbh.
I've just gone and read the Sexual Offences Act and that stipulation isn't there at all. Try again.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42

Child sex offences
9Sexual activity with a child

(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

----(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

----(b)the touching is sexual, and

----(c)either—

--------(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

--------(ii)B is under 13.

Try again.
Which means that if an over-18 has sex (or engages in any kind of sexual activity) with an under-16, an offence (namely sexual abuse of a child) has occurred. An under-18 can't sexually abuse a child because said under-18 is a child theirself; the offence of which they are guilty is simply sexual abuse.

Are you keeping up?
0
reply
bones-mccoy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
The age of consent is 16 in the UK, but only for partners 16-18. A bit of confusion is understandable tbh.
That's true generally speaking but she is a teacher and therefore in a position of trust
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Tootles)
Which means that if an over-18 has sex (or engages in any kind of sexual activity) with an under-16, an offence (namely sexual abuse of a child) has occurred. An under-18 can't sexually abuse a child because said under-18 is a child theirself;the offence of which they are guilty is simply sexual abuse.

Are you keeping up?
You're broadly right, however their being a child doesn't preclude them from having sexually activity with a child. They still commit the offence under section 9 by virtue of section 13. It's simply with a different sentencing cap. Children who commit a section 9 offence face a 5-year max sentence, whereas someone 18+ would be susceptible to a 14-year max sentence.

There being a relationship only becomes relevant for indecent images of someone aged 16, 17 (s45). Having indecent images of someone below 18 is illegal, unless the child is 16+ and you are "married" to the child or you and the child "lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship".

The law in this area is hugely complicated and, I daresay, outdated.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
You're broadly right, however their being a child doesn't preclude them from having sexually activity with a child. They still commit the offence under section 9 by virtue of section 13. It's simply with a different sentencing cap. Children who commit a section 9 offence face a 5-year max sentence, whereas someone 18+ would be susceptible to a 14-year max sentence.

There being a relationship only becomes relevant for indecent images of someone aged 16, 17 (s45). Having indecent images of someone below 18 is illegal, unless the child is 16+ and you are "married" to the child or you and the child "lived together as partners in an enduring family relationship".

The law in this area is hugely complicated and, I daresay, outdated.
I thought, for one thing, that they didn't have to necessarily be married but simply be in a committed relatonship - and for another, that that specific law had been repealed/superceded and no longer is in effect...? Weiss nicht, I'm not a lawyer :lol:

The point with the difference between the two crime definitions is exactly the punishment, AFAIK. It's done that way to allow for more lenient sentencing if it's an under-eighteen and an under-sixteen.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Tootles)
I thought, for one thing, that they didn't have to necessarily be married but simply be in a committed relatonship - and for another, that that specific law had been repealed/superceded and no longer is in effect...? Weiss nicht, I'm not a lawyer :lol:

The point with the difference between the two crime definitions is exactly the punishment, AFAIK. It's done that way to allow for more lenient sentencing if it's an under-eighteen and an under-sixteen.
Married or committed relationship. I did use the word or in there! But I appreciate it was slightly wordy. Marriage is specifically mentioned in the section and the quotation marked text is verbatim.

That law is still good law, according to legislation.gov and the CPS website.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
Married or committed relationship. I did use the word or in there! But I appreciate it was slightly wordy. Marriage is specifically mentioned in the section and the quotation marked text is verbatim.

That law is still good law, according to legislation.gov and the CPS website.
Aah I thought you meant literally married. It's been a while since I read it, haha.

And fair enough - I thought I'd read somewhere that it had been superceded a few years ago is all.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Tootles)
Aah I thought you meant literally married. It's been a while since I read it, haha.

And fair enough - I thought I'd read somewhere that it had been superceded a few years ago is all.
I know, you got me worried there.

I was trying to come here and clear everything up, and then thinking half of what I am saying is wrong anyway. Thanks for getting me worried!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (518)
33.77%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (634)
41.33%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (312)
20.34%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (70)
4.56%

Watched Threads

View All