(no subject)

[binidj]

Saw this article on Google News which confirmed my suspicions that all was not as simple as it seemed in the recent furore regarding a teacher on the paedophiles register being allowed to teach. Cases like this are not what such registers are for in my opinion, he's clearly not a threat to young people and to lump him in with people who abuse children serves only to reduce the efficacy of the register.

Comments

[jayphoenix.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that I am now torn on this. Part of me realises that 15 is just a spurious age picked out of the air by modern morality and that 200 years ago that girl would have been married with children. They were together for 19 years and had tchildren together, that is not grroming or abuse that is a stable and loving relationship.

However another part of me realises that it is still the law and that he broke a position of trust. I wonder, for example, what her parents would have thought about him being 'not a threat to young people'? I am sure that they were none too pleased about a middle-aged teacher being with their teenage daughter.

[binidj.livejournal.com]

Of course it is still the law and, technically, he should be punished for breaking the law. However, should he still be being punished over 20 years later?

I'm mindful that my first partner and I were conducting an illegal relationship when we first met (I was 18 and the age of consent was 21) yet clearly I don't feel that he was either abusive or deserving of having his career ruined. Consequently I feel that I can empathise with this guy quite easily.

[jayphoenix.livejournal.com]

*SIGH*

I am reminded of glass houses and stones now :)

I was 15 and she was older, so 'technically' and 'legally' not only was the law broken but I suppose that I was abused.

In answer to your question, no he shouldn't be punished for something that not only happened 20 years ago but also shouldn't have been deemed a crime.

I stand VERY corrected on this one old bean!