I love how you included the bareback comment in brackets.
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 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.
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.
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
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
(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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.