(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

[swiftblade.livejournal.com]

I picked this up from the news reports. He "indescentally assaulted her", though in fact it could easily have been "rape" I would imagine since at 15 you are deemed unable to consent.

Let's take this one step further. Imagine he wasn't a teacher. Imagine he was a 16 year old kid sleeping with a 15 year old girl. Still techincally rape, should this 16 year old be denied from ever teaching because he commited " a sexual offence against a minor" and would tecnically be a peadophile. If not, what if he was 17? 18? 21? What age do you *actually* become a peaddophile. What about if you sleep with people whose bodies don't mature and look under 16, but they are over the age. Are you a peadophile?

This really is the which hunt of the 21st century. I hate peadophilier and everything about it, and whilst I understand that the law has to draw a line somewhere, realistically we are know that each person is different. I know 19 year olds that aren't emotionally mature enough to have sex, and I know 14 and 15 year olds that I would say are.

This case, in my view, has been way over hyped. Oddly enough, despite the above, I think there should be some concerns about him being a teacher. Why? Because he slept with a pupil and hence abused a position of trust. That would apply even if she was 16 in my view. But his case was reviewed and looked at. Surely these people considered this and decided it was a one off perhaps? We don't know his specifics and enough about it, but to label it as the press have done as "Peadophile allowed to teach" is totally misleading in my view.

[paulbenwell.livejournal.com]

I heard the interview on Radio 4 Today programme from him. Seems he didn't have any sexual activity with her until she turned 16 (and had left his school). She was never his pupil (okay a technical point but still) and the contact prior to 16 seems merely to have been hand holding and some kissing. During the court appearance she even made a declaration totally supporting him (and has already been noted they were married for 19 years afterwards). He was only fined and never had a prison term applied (even suspended).

None of this of course condones his action, but in the light of the period of time it occured (over 20 years ago) when rules were different, I still think the original decision to allow him to teach was correct.

Only a final note - a bête noire of mine.. a pedophile is someone with a recurrent sexual interest is toward children, either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty.

A hebephile is sexually attracted to post-pubertal adolescents (usually 13/14 to 17).

These terms of course become mired in the social and cultural attitudes of the country. Since many countries have widely differing opinions on age of consent (just compare the USA and UK for ages of consent).

[swiftblade.livejournal.com]

That's very interesting and supports my view of how the media can be technically accurate, yet actually totally misleading.