It is highly unethical for a teacher to continue teaching someone or to be in any way involved in their grading, after they have started a relationship. The teacher ought to have been disciplined for this, and possibly dismissed.
There is no mention however of paedophilia in the clinical sense being a factor here, nor that the relationship was very different from a normal romance between two young people, one somewhat younger than the other. The state then has no business interfering in one of the few things that make life worth living, and the long jail sentence cannot reasonably be seen as anything other than a perverse application of a crude law.
An impact statement from the girl's parents said the teacher went "out of her way" to befriend them and their "vulnerable" daughter.
Note that "impact statement" includes considerations about the parents. Often in such cases, parents choose to see themselves as victims. Their hurt pride means more to them than the best interests of their children.
"It is, of course, against the law to engage in sexual activity with a person under 16, even with her consent."
As a rule, statements of judges are full of self-righteous moralising bullshit, suggesting they have the private phone number of God™, whom they consult to distinguish right and wrong. In this case however, there is no mention of "wrong", but just of "against the law". This country has sunk so low that we don't even pretend any more that the law is a reflection of any kind of natural justice.
If the law is out of synch with reality, then reality will have to adapt to the law. This harsh sentencing will miraculously alter the genes of Britons, and from now on, no one will fall in love with anyone on the opposite side of the 16th birthday.
The judge added: "The relationship involved a fair degree of deception not only in respect of the school but also to the girl's parents."
How strange that lovers would try to keep such a relationship secret, when bringing it in the open would only get one of the two in jail for a long time.
The school was made aware of the affair through an anonymous e-mail tip-off, the court heard.
Nice to have such friends and colleagues. I wonder how they can bear the guilt for the rest of their lives.
The judge, who was told the girl and the teacher were genuinely in love, did not uphold the prosecution's request for a sexual offences prevention order as it would be "draconian and unnecessarily cruel" to the girl as well.
How kind of the judge to consider the girl's interests. No doubt she will be delighted that she can see her lover in jail for the next 15 months.
The original BBC News article also included the following (which has since been edited out, but it is still found in the Guardian article, which seems to have been derived from it):
Officers raided the teacher's maisonette in Greenwich, south-east London, and arrested the 26-year-old. They seized sex toys from the house.
What do these "sex toys" prove, other than that BBC News journalists are pathetic little weasels who are all too eager to harm people's privacy far beyond the call of duty?
See also:
Blurred boundaries for teachers (Guardian, Wednesday 23 September 2009)
Some of the comments are noteworthy. Whereas Guardian readers tend to be open-minded and critical of the nanny state, as soon as sex is involved even they turn into hysterical bigotted monsters, calling for even harsher penalties for "pervs".
What is it with Britons and sex?
No comments:
Post a Comment