Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
I know the law says it, and i know thats what it will be based on, im suggesting the law isnt flexible enough.
[Edited on 29-09-2012 by Steve]
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Why would you want a flexible law? I can see no possible reason why it would be a good thing.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
For the very reason this whole affair has been blown up so disproportionately and to protect people that could have their lives ruined because they happened to act prematurely by a few months with regards to a number.
Id also be very interested to see how the punishment and charges would differ if it hadnt been so high profile and the media not made it out to be so terrible
|
tom_simes
Show Staff
Organiser: South Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 12th Jan 05
Location: Undy, Newport Drives: Skoda Octavia vRS estate
User status: Offline
|
I agree with Mike - the law should not be flexible, it should be clear as to what is illegal, and therefore implies what is legal.
However, as I've previously stated, the flexibility is in the sentencing. The judge chooses the harshness of the sentence based on the severity of the crime.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by tom_simes
I agree with Mike - the law should not be flexible, it should be clear as to what is illegal, and therefore implies what is legal.
However, as I've previously stated, the flexibility is in the sentencing. The judge chooses the harshness of the sentence based on the severity of the crime.
Great if thats how it always works. However the media has had their say. So id imagine hes got a massive sentence coming to him
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
And you think the difference between a blokes life being ruined and going to jail can be down to simply being in a situation a week before being in that same situation 2 weeks later for example?
[Edited on 29-09-2012 by Steve]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
If her 16th birthday was the 6th October for example.
He goes to france with her on the 21st September, gets a jail sentence and a criminal record.
He goes to france with her on the 6th October, he gets nothing.
Its wrong, theres not enough flexibility there
He probably deserves a small punishment for the former, and a small punishment for the latter.
Not massive one day, and nothing the next because it happens to fall either side of a number
[Edited on 29-09-2012 by Steve]
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Online
|
The media will clearly make it worse for them.
The sentence always would have been flexible based on the circumstances.
Steve - just a little point - in your philosophical post about age being just some maths and not related to the body - you say there should be a lower limit of 13. So you do want a limit then. Just that the UK chose 16.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Probably you cant leave everything up to natural instinct, 15 is too grey though
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Online
|
Same as any law though with a threshold, even if it was written to be flexible you'd have a few cases and they would be used as precedent, you've got to draw the line somewhere.
I appreciate its nuts, but the sentence would vary, you might even find the CPS wouldn't choose to prosecute for 15 years, 11 months. However this case has extenuating circumstances.
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
I don't care if he was 22 and she was 16, he is in a position of responsibility and care for CHILDREN of similar ages.
Lol at Steve justifying it. We all know why he is
|
Y869 SRA
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 12
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by thomson
who says they have even fucked
I was thinking this myself. Everyone is just assuming they have.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by pow
We all know why he is
and whys that?
[Edited on 29-09-2012 by Steve]
|
Y869 SRA
Member
Registered: 22nd Jul 12
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by tom_simes
the law should not be flexible, it should be clear as to what is illegal, and therefore implies what is legal.
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
For the very reason this whole affair has been blown up so disproportionately and to protect people that could have their lives ruined because they happened to act prematurely by a few months with regards to a number.
Id also be very interested to see how the punishment and charges would differ if it hadnt been so high profile and the media not made it out to be so terrible
They didn't 'happen' to act prematurely, they chose to  It wasn't accidental, he opted to knowingly break the law. He knew this because the law offers no flexibility and therefore he could be completely 100% sure whether he was acting legally or illegally. He's probably been unfortunate in the coverage that the story has received but it could all have been avoided by him not choosing to break the current non-flexible law we currently have in place.
As Tom says, the age should be taken into account when it goes to court but that goes without saying, as with the example before, you wouldn't be sentenced equally for stealing a car as you would for stealing some sweets but in this case, he got unlucky due to the media coverage and as such, yes he'll be made an example of but it's no different to coming up against an arsey judge that takes a disliking to you and opts to give maximum term for the crimes committed. When did the term, don't commit the crime if you can't do the time become irrelevant?
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
Because at the age of 29 you were in a relationship with a 17 year old. Had you been in a position of responsibility and care for her ie teaching her it would have been illegal.
And how can you argue a 15 year old girl is fully developed mentally? He will have taken advantage of her niaveity and lack of experience with with relationships t get what he wanted.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by pow
Because at the age of 29 you were in a relationship with a 17 year old.
Actually I was 28 and she was 18 but yeah
quote:
Originally posted by pow
Had you been in a position of responsibility and care for her ie teaching her it would have been illegal.
Incorrect
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I agree with you Steve that 16 is just an arbitrary number, in times gone by, and in some countries today obviously, it can still be younger.
Look at how stupid kids are today though. They struggle to put a sentence together, do you really think they are mentally capable of deciding whether it's ok to run away to France with a teacher?
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
You would have been struck off the teaching register, lost your job and likely prosecuted
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by pow
You would have been struck off the teaching register,
Probably
quote:
Originally posted by pow
lost your job
Probably
quote:
Originally posted by pow
and likely prosecuted
No
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Im not sure what your point is pow.
You said we all know why im defending it, yet continued to waffle on about if i was a teacher, but im not so what has teaching got to do with it? aside from me agreeing that he should be punished from a professional point of view, im still unclear why you think i have an agenda to defend this behaviour as its certainly not about teaching?
[Edited on 29-09-2012 by Steve]
|
tom_simes
Show Staff
Organiser: South Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 12th Jan 05
Location: Undy, Newport Drives: Skoda Octavia vRS estate
User status: Offline
|
Steve, there was a story earlier in the week about a teacher getting jailed for 'abusing a position of trust'. Yes, the pupil was 16, so younger than your example of 18, but still completely legal if he wasn't a teacher:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-19642793
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Yes because that was under 18 hence illegal. Me being a teacher seeing an 18 year old isn't. See Ian's outlay of the law earlier in the thread
[Edited on 29-09-2012 by Steve]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it illegal to have sexual relations with a person under your supervision if they are under 18 or over 18 in the case of a vulnerable adult.
In your example of a 22yo teacher and an 18yo student there would be no offence.
The school position may be more stringent than law and most will forbid it somewhere in their own policies.
|
adiohead
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 01
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrah
Bet she gives good head.
and takes it in the anus
|
