Music teacher jailed for lesbian romp with pupil

Buffman · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:48

I probably would, but theres was some much hotter teachers at my old school

.

Energize · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:48

Nickg said:
wait... so what happens in underage pregnancies when they can be 100% sure that an "act" did actually happen between 2 people potentially of illegal age?

Nothing most of the time, the government has a policy not to prosecute people having sex underage generally.

something_totally_different · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:51

Energize said:
Nothing most of the time, the government has a policy not to prosecute people having sex underage generally.

if they did, half the teenage population would be in jail.

Its far worse in america, they have been trying 14, 15, 16, 17 yr olds as paedophiles for sending naked texts of themselves to their girl / boyfriends. they are ending up on registers and all sorts, its total madness.

vincent1989 · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:54

something_totally_different said:
if they did, half the teenage population would be in jail.

Its far worse in america, they have been trying 14, 15, 16, 17 yr olds as paedophiles for sending naked texts of themselves to their girl / boyfriends. they are ending up on registers and all sorts, its total madness.

to be honest i think it's a stupid law, but i'd be happier if the govt. acted out it's laws instead of having laws they aren't going to do anything with.

Tefal · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:56

vincent1989 said:
to be honest i think it's a stupid law, but i'd be happier if the govt. acted out it's laws instead of having laws they aren't going to do anything with.

You would rather the government counter productivly punish people under what you describe as a "stupid law" than them let judges excersice discretion?

why? :/

knowlesy · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:56

steve-h said:
yum

she'll be 16 in 15months time?

dont you have to be 17 to be gay (not joking here )

Azagoth · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:58

something_totally_different said:
Its far worse in america, they have been trying 14, 15, 16, 17 yr olds as paedophiles for sending naked texts of themselves to their girl / boyfriends. they are ending up on registers and all sorts, its total madness.

Yes, but you mustn't forget that that's the Country that gets outraged by some pixels having 'sex' in an 18 rated video game and Janet Jackson flashing a nipple. Yet at the same time happens to be the home of a $15 Billion porn industry.

MowyTone · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:58

knowlesy said:
dont you have to be 17 to be gay (not joking here )

so your age tells you when you can be gay?

Tefal · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:58

knowlesy said:
dont you have to be 17 to be gay (not joking here )

not in the uk but you do in some states iirc

handy chart

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

MowyTone · 21 Sep 2009 at 15:59

Azagoth said:
Yes, but you mustn't forget that that's the Country that gets outraged by some pixels having 'sex' in an 18 rated video game and Janet Jackson flashing a nipple. Yet at the same time happens to be the home of a $15 Billion porn industry.

Ah America....land of contradiction

knowlesy · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:01

Tefal said:
not in the uk but you do in some states iirc

all very stupid tbh, totally agree with what was said before though, if it was male on male or a male teacher he'd be slated and hated....

EDIT:

cool chart, shocking how its actually illegal in some places still, even worse was what happend in Jamaica recently but thats off topic

antijoke · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:14

vincent1989 said:

It is actually starting to scare me now, I looked at the pic again, and I see old Viggo staring back at me.

vincent1989 · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:15

Tefal said:
You would rather the government counter productivly punish people under what you describe as a "stupid law" than them let judges excersice discretion?

why? :/

no, i'd rather they repealed the law if they aren't going to enact it. lets face it the only reason they don't is because it'd be all over the sun and the mirror, telling the unwashed masses that 'labour are **** look, they want little kiddies to shag each other'

our govt/police et al don't even prosecute under-age people having sex so where the judges come in i don't know.

IF you have a law you SHOULD make attempts to enact that law, otherwise people have no respect FOR the law.

make sense now?

Sankari · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:17

nikebee said:
How come I never had a teacher that looked like that?

Because you were lucky.

She's not remotely attractive; she looks like a stick, and probably feels like one too.

vincent1989 · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:21

Evangelion said:
Because you were lucky.

She's not remotely attractive; she looks like a stick, and probably feels like one too.

she obviously wants to be one (hur hur

)

Tefal · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:21

vincent1989 said:
no, i'd rather they repealed the law if they aren't going to enact it. lets face it the only reason they don't is because it'd be all over the sun and the mirror, telling the unwashed masses that 'labour are **** look, they want little kiddies to shag each other'

our govt don't even prosecute under-age people having sex so where the judges come in i don't know.

IF you have a law you SHOULD make attempts to enact that law, otherwise people have no respect FOR the law.

make sense now?

but then you have to make severall new laws/exceptions.

ie it's illegal for people over this age to have sex with a person this age.

however if two underage people of certain similar ages do it it's ok,

but agin if two under age people of significantly disproportionate ages have sex it's again illegal.

You'd need the basic age of consent to protect from people over the age.

You'd then need a new minimum age of consent for two people under the other one.

You'd then need a law stating exactly what age difference is ok.

You'd need mouch more law/writing/complication than just having it as it is and at the discretion of the cPS or whoever to prosecute.

blix · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:23

vincent1989 · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:35

Tefal said:
but then you have to make severall new laws/exceptions.

ie it's illegal for people over this age to have sex with a person this age.

however if two underage people of certain similar ages do it it's ok,

but agin if two under age people of significantly disproportionate ages have sex it's again illegal.

You'd need the basic age of consent to protect from people over the age.

You'd then need a new minimum age of consent for two people under the other one.

You'd then need a law stating exactly what age difference is ok.

You'd need mouch more law/writing/complication than just having it as it is and at the discretion of the cPS or whoever to prosecute.

lol, why make this in to a mole hill? i'd rather our country had clear, defined laws people were expected to abide by rather than

This is the LAW
-but it's ok to do this if that is taken in to account and oh, this ones ok to be broken, and definitely don't do that one unless you happen to be in this particular situation

transparency is better than translucency in regard to laws.

shall we leave it as that?

something_totally_different · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:35

knowlesy said:
dont you have to be 17 to be gay (not joking here )

its 16, unless your arrested by the coventry police force when your 18 and your partners 16, charged with statutory rape, and YOU the accused have to inform them that the age of consent had changed!! :eek:

as happened to me many years ago.

Ive never trusted the police since. If they dont know the law, what hope do we have.

Tefal · 21 Sep 2009 at 16:37

vincent1989 said:
lol, why make this in to a mole hill? i'd rather our country had clear, defined laws people were expected to abide by rather than

This is the LAW
-but it's ok to do this if that is taken in to account and oh, this ones ok to be broken, and definitely don't do that one unless you happen to be in this particular situation

transparency is better than translucency in regard to laws.

shall we leave it as that?

I'd rather have one law with discrestion and flexibility than several iron clad laws that can't take context or circumstances into acount.