Sex offenders Register or not???

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

On the way back from Glasgow today i was listening to Gaunty on Radio 5 and amongst some of the "shock Jock" stories he was discussing was the one about a Teacher who might be put on the sex offenders register because he has had sex with a 16 year old student at the school he teaches at.

The thing is the law states it is NOT an offence to have consenting sex with a 16 year old, but because he was/is in a position of responsibility it is deemed to be an offence.

Do you think that he should go on the sex offenders register??

 

[Cricko]

That is a tricky one Dave ( I heard she was 18 and at college)...Overall in a position of responsibility he over stepped the mark, but I do find it a bit over the top he should go on a Sex offenders list when he could do what he liked within the law (age) outside of college.

So NO he should not go on the list IMO

 

[MK Shrimper]

No. This was on Radio 2 today.

A bloke met and married his wife. He was 17, she was 23. She was his teacher and they've now got kids and very happy.

Yes, severe sanctions such as losing your job, but going on the sex offenders register is barmy because NO ONE is harmed if it's consensual.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

That is a tricky one Dave ( I heard she was 18 and at college)...Overall in a position of responsibility he over stepped the mark, but I do find it a bit over the top he should go on a Sex offenders list when he could do what he liked within the law (age) outside of college.

So NO he should not go on the list IMO

i am in agreement with you John.....as you say, he should have known better than to have sex with a student in his school but he is hardly in the same category as Gary Gliter!!!

They said she was 16 but i might be wrong

 

[stevie_G_G_G]

I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show at work today on radio 2 and they had the same debate going on. I don't agree with it and i definately feel the teacher should never be allowed to teach again, but to get on the sex offenders list is wrong IMO. Yes, they're in a position of trust but how can they be branded a paedophile when the girls at a legal age?

Maybe the age should be raised to 17/18?

 

[BrettieAngell]

Shouldn't go on the sex offenders list IMO.

Lose your job etc. yes but thats going too far.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

That is a tricky one Dave ( I heard she was 18 and at college)...Overall in a position of responsibility he over stepped the mark, but I do find it a bit over the top he should go on a Sex offenders list when he could do what he liked within the law (age) outside of college.

So NO he should not go on the list IMO

Also the fact that he could have a perfectly legitimate relationship with an 18-year-old pupil enrolled at another school makes a mockery if they are saying he should not have had sex being in a position of responsibility.....if she is enrolled at another school doe the teacher all of a sudden become someone who is not in a position of responsibility??

 

[Cricko]

*Poll Added*

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

*Poll Added*

Cheers gramps!!!

;)

 

[BoyWonder2]

Surely the fact that his likely to lose his job, and will probably never work in teaching again would be enough.

Shouldn't be put on the sex offenders register in my opinion.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Surely the fact that his likely to lose his job, and will probably never work in teaching again would be enough.

Shouldn't be put on the sex offenders register in my opinion.

It's very tricky ground, remember he is meant to be in a position of trust as her teacher.

Having said that losing his career is probably punishment enough.

 

[BoyWonder2]

It's very tricky ground, remember he is meant to be in a position of trust as her teacher.

Having said that losing his career is probably punishment enough.

Thats true but it was consensual I'm assuming. Suppose it all depends on what the girl involved says about it.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

Thats true but it was consensual I'm assuming. Suppose it all depends on what the girl involved says about it.

IMO......as said many times, he deserves to be signing on next week but not to be put on the Sex Offenders Register

 

[canveyshrimper]

IMO......as said many times, he deserves to be signing on next week but not to be put on the Sex Offenders Register

I think you are probably right, but if she was your daughter, how do you think you would feel?

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

I think you are probably right, but if she was your daughter, how do you think you would feel?

Honestly.......i would kick the living sh*it out of him, but when the red mist had settled and i realised that my daughter was just as guilty, being a consenting party, i would not want to see the bloke on on a sex offenders register

 

[Benfleet A1]

I tend to agree with AS here except I would also sever his todger with a blunt butter knife and mount it on the wall just inside the front door as a warning to others.

Not that I'm a protective father or anything.

 

[RobM]

Why should he be put on the SOR? He hasn't committed a sexual offence. I'm totally in agreement he has abused a position of trust though and should have had enough common sense to know better.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Any teacher taking on a position in a school with teenagers in knows the way the law stands at the moment. Personally, I have no problem with a teacher beginning a relationship with a student if they are 16 years or older depending on the circumstance, BUT I do understand that this makes the school's position very difficult. If you're allowed to marry at 16, why should these circumstances be any different? Each case is obviously different and there are indeed some where you do think that the teacher involved (usually a much older bloke) is just a sleaze, but there are others where it's clearly not like that.

In all fairness, the teacher concerned should attempt to distance themselves from the pupil in school, if they're in their class for something then one or other needs to be moved. Where do you draw the line though? A teacher and student meeting for drinks and a bit of a pash is hardly the same as a full on sexual relationship, so should any kind of relationship be banned?

When I was at school, during the 5th year, I used to socialise with one of the teachers at the boys' school next door at our cricket club, and he was a good friend of one of the male teachers in our school. As a result of which, this other teacher began to "see" a friend of mine while both were still at school. She later married him, (and then they later divorced) but there was nothing remotely untoward about it. He was never one of her teachers and it was a relationship that developed outside of school. Today, he'd be put on the register as things stand and have lost his job. Apart from the fact that they married, it wasn't greatly different to the relationship that developed between me and the other one - yet he was still a teacher, how would this be viewed today?

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

Why should he be put on the SOR? He hasn't committed a sexual offence. I'm totally in agreement he has abused a position of trust though and should have had enough common sense to know better.

According to the law he has....it is deemed not to be an offence if she is over 16 unless you are in a position of responsibility....I.E. her teacher

Complete bo*llox IMO

 

[Tinks]

Unfortuntely, as the law stands it does say a person has to be 16 to engage in sexual acts (trying telling that to some teenagers) however, for child protection issues that age is stated as 18. The teacher here should have been aware of this and IMO abused his trust/position