A teacher is in a position of trust and, if teaching the pupil, is in loco parentis. The law says it is a criminal offence for a person in a position of trust to engage in any sexual activity with a person aged under 18 with whom they have a relationship of trust, irrespective of the age of consent, even if the basis for their relationship is consensual.
He committed the offence of child abduction and may have engaged in sexual activity with her......also an offence.....thus he has to face trial in a court.
Parents leave their children in schools under the assumption that teachers will look after and protect those children - as a good parent would. If a teacher breaks that trust and does not face penalties then that leaves the door open for others to commit similar offences or worse and destroys the long upheld premis that teachers will protect pupils.
They are not star-crossed lovers in some fairy tale. He knew the law. If he loved her that much then he would have moved school and waited until she was 18, not leaving the country with her, damaging her education, and causing her parents and his wife immense upset and worry.
Whilst agree with the sensible thrust of your post life isnt always like that, perhaps they both said fk it lets elope for their own reasons, two stupid decisions, no real crime, no abuse evident
keep your hair on, i didnt know the law said a former pupil is out of bounds, so basically if a man leaves the teaching profession and falls in love with a 16 or 17 year old at his old school its a criminal offence to fancy each other and go out
No idea what your troll comment means, ,losing some argument perchance??
Yes. A former pupil is out of bounds until that pupil reaches the age of 18. However once she reaches the age of 16, she can have sexual relationships quite legally with other men
Whilst agree with the sensible thrust of your post life isnt always like that, perhaps they both said fk it lets elope for their own reasons, two stupid decisions, no real crime, no abuse evident
Still makes no difference. The decisions they made were stupid but as he was her teacher then he, quite knowingly, broke the law in having a relationship with her whilst she was his pupil. Even if she left the country quite willingly, she was a minor in the eyes of the law and could not leave the country without parental permission. As parental permission was not sought and granted, that is why he has been charged with child (she is a minor, a child) abduction - her willingness or otherwise is immaterial.
The law is there to protect children from themselves and from others!
keep your hair on, i didnt know the law said a former pupil is out of bounds, so basically if a man leaves the teaching profession and falls in love with a 16 or 17 year old at his old school its a criminal offence to fancy each other and go out
No idea what your troll comment means, ,losing some argument perchance??
The law has already been explained several times over this thread.
However I may have been a little harsh regarding that last comment!
Still makes no difference. The decisions they made were stupid but as he was her teacher then he, quite knowingly, broke the law in having a relationship with her whilst she was his pupil. Even if she left the country quite willingly, she was a minor in the eyes of the law and could not leave the country without parental permission. As parental permission was not sought and granted, that is why he has been charged with child (she is a minor, a child) abduction - her willingness or otherwise is immaterial.
The law is there to protect children from themselves and from others!
well agree withthat in principle and practice for most cases
breaking the law of the land is never the end of the world, the law is an ass in many cases
barf
The law is there to protect children and whilst may have failings, does a pretty good job of protecting children from those who take advantage of their immaturity and naivity..
You cannot make exceptions although the severity will depend on the degree of co-ertion, and the circumstances of the individuals concerned. If the law is not applied then that leaves children at risk
breaking the law of the land is never the end of the world, the law is an ass in many cases
barf Not everyone obeys the bloody law you know anyway
No, but a teacher has a special and particular responsibily towards his/her pupils and that is made quite clear to all teachers as are the consequences if they break that trust.
The law is there to protect children and whilst may have failings, does a pretty good job of protecting children from those who take advantage of their immaturity and naivity..
You cannot make exceptions although the severity will depend on the degree of co-ertion, and the circumstances of the individuals concerned. If the law is not applied then that leaves children at risk
The law is there to protect children and whilst may have failings, does a pretty good job of protecting children from those who take advantage of their immaturity and naivity..
You cannot make exceptions although the severity will depend on the degree of co-ertion, and the circumstances of the individuals concerned. If the law is not applied then that leaves children at risk
you can
If both eloped out of love
In that case the law means nothing but a pain in the arris for them both
In that case the law means nothing but a pain in the arris for them both
That seems rather naive. He knew the law and broke it anyway. He may or not not have taken advantage of the girl, but he did break the law and deserves the consequences.
Megan 'may' feel she was a willing participant at the moment but it would be interesting how she thinks about in 10/20 years time when she looks back at the experience with maturity.
I'm sure that there are plenty of women here who have gone along with things as teenagers and looking back now realise it wasn't really what they had wanted but they had been coerced.
keep your hair on, i didnt know the law said a former pupil is out of bounds, so basically if a man leaves the teaching profession and falls in love with a 16 or 17 year old at his old school its a criminal offence to fancy each other and go out
No idea what your troll comment means, ,losing some argument perchance??
I don't know the exact wording of the law, but it does effectively make the age of consent for teachers 18, which I think is frankly idiotic, but still.
Comments
Whilst agree with the sensible thrust of your post life isnt always like that, perhaps they both said fk it lets elope for their own reasons, two stupid decisions, no real crime, no abuse evident
Yes. A former pupil is out of bounds until that pupil reaches the age of 18. However once she reaches the age of 16, she can have sexual relationships quite legally with other men
Still makes no difference. The decisions they made were stupid but as he was her teacher then he, quite knowingly, broke the law in having a relationship with her whilst she was his pupil. Even if she left the country quite willingly, she was a minor in the eyes of the law and could not leave the country without parental permission. As parental permission was not sought and granted, that is why he has been charged with child (she is a minor, a child) abduction - her willingness or otherwise is immaterial.
The law is there to protect children from themselves and from others!
yeah he did technically
its obvious he was off his rocker here and thought of no one but himself
doesnt make him evil
doesnt make him guilty of coercion etc
guilty of having a juvenile romantic frame of mind some people here make him out to be a bloody trafficker or something
The law has already been explained several times over this thread.
However I may have been a little harsh regarding that last comment!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Apologies!
It does however make him guilty of breaking the law of this land!
well agree withthat in principle and practice for most cases
breaking the law of the land is never the end of the world, the law is an ass in many cases
barf
Not everyone obeys the bloody law you know anyway
The law is there to protect children and whilst may have failings, does a pretty good job of protecting children from those who take advantage of their immaturity and naivity..
You cannot make exceptions although the severity will depend on the degree of co-ertion, and the circumstances of the individuals concerned. If the law is not applied then that leaves children at risk
And one day they may well be caught and pay the consequences for their illegal activities too.
No, but a teacher has a special and particular responsibily towards his/her pupils and that is made quite clear to all teachers as are the consequences if they break that trust.
Very true, as we have seen recently in Bradford.
Quite:(
Am leaving thread now as my head is quite sore from banging it against a brick wall!
Me too!
you can
If both eloped out of love
In that case the law means nothing but a pain in the arris for them both
That seems rather naive. He knew the law and broke it anyway. He may or not not have taken advantage of the girl, but he did break the law and deserves the consequences.
Maybe a Hello wedding (in a few years of course)
I'm sure that there are plenty of women here who have gone along with things as teenagers and looking back now realise it wasn't really what they had wanted but they had been coerced.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-forrest-runaway-teacher-remanded-1372757
Looking at this article, it could be a while before he does get out!
Not to mention he hasn't been charged with having sex with her as far as I can see.
I don't know the exact wording of the law, but it does effectively make the age of consent for teachers 18, which I think is frankly idiotic, but still.
In that case he was charged with having sex with her, which as far as I can tell Forrest isn't. It's a different offence.
Now the maximum for child abduction is 7 years, but I really doubt Forrest will get anywhere near that.