in thiking you don't generally tend to have sex with people who have been stalking you?

[RoyallyFuckedOff]

And that teenager can't groom and adult?

Iwww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30813335

From the judge Judge Greenberg said she believed the victim was "intelligent and manipulative" and "showed no compunction" about lying when it suited herJudge Greenberg said she believed the victim was "intelligent and manipulative" and "showed no compunction" about lying when it suited her

The charming fellow had sex with a teenager the same week his wife was miscarrying their baby and apparently that was grounds for him being "weak".

AIBU to think he is scum and that the judge is a rape myth peddling idiot who should never be allowed to hold a gavel after insulting a victim?

'they can be very skilful at making it seem as if the victim is chasing them, or even making the victim believe that they want them. Most grooming type offences are characterised in exactly this way -'

Yes I agree - that's a classic characteristic of grooming.

I know that really Andrewofgg although I'm no criminal lawyer - best to take my comments as saying that general criticism of cases is never any bad thing, or is society engaging in this way.

Regarding appointment of judges, some European countries actually hold exams and/or appoint those lawyers from an academic as well as a practising background. Having encountered more than one first instance judge who has clearly forgotten some of the more advanced principles of contract law, no bad thing?

There is something to be said for the judiciary being a separate profession but I am not keen. It is certainly odd that judges can be trying cases in areas in which they did not practice (this does not apply in the Kerner case). When Mr Justice Staughton was appointed his background was from the commercial and shipping Bar, but his first case was the criminal trial when Mrs Mary Whitehouse prosecuted all concerned with the staging of a lay called The Romans in Britain and the joke ran round the Bar that he thought The Romans in Britain was a ship chartered in Gencon form!

HouseWhereNobodyLives A teacher having sex with a 'reluctant' pupil would be raping them and would therefore be charged with rape (a totally different offence to abuse of position of trust). You can't really compare the two at all.

Not necessarily. If the pupil was initially reluctant or uninterested but then the teacher made persistent advances andthe pupil eventually agreed to have sex, that would not be charged as rape. A teacher who did that would be charged with exactly the same thing as Stuart Kerner but it would be bizarre, in my opinion anyway, to give them the same sentences. Pestering someone into sex, even if they agree in the end, is far more serious than what Stuart Kerner did, however much of a sleazebag he is. And he IS, I'm not defending him just pointing out that worse people guilty of worse behaviour could fall into the same legal category, which is why the judge was right to give him a lower sentence and to explain why. That said, I agree with alreadytaken that the judge could have phrased it better.

Staircase I understand your point of view and I'm really sorry for what you went through but don't you think it would have been even more damaging if you hadn't wanted to be with him at the time, whatever you ended up feeling about it later? Surely it's always more harmful to be having sex with someone you're not attracted to and don't want to have sex with? I'm not trying to minimise the effects of this experience on you, clearly this teacher did not treat you well and messed up a part of your life, and I admire your strength in moving past that, but I don't think we do teenagers any favours by seeing these situations in black and white. Like I said in the other thread, the only after-effects of my own relationship were a confidence boost and some fond memories. Another couple who were a teacher and pupil at my school are married now, and she was 15 so actually underage when it started (whereas I was 16 which wasn't illegal at the time). DH has a friend from uni who started dating one of the lecturers when she was 17. They're also happily married now. I know that's not exactly the same but it's another situation where on the face of it the lecturer has more power, but scratch the surface and sometimes the reality is quite different: in this case she is very self-assured while he can be quite naive and unwordly, and he clearly dotes on her (and she on him).

Yes but we met when I was 11 and he was 25, Helen. With the best will in the world 2 months previously I was in primary school. Who knows what I thought before I met him about anything- I certainly don't recall. I did fancy him and did enjoy- at least in part- some of our later sexual endevours.... But he started cracking on to me when I was 12!!! I was barely a human being let alone someone capable of rationalising my sexual feelings. By the time I was he was already having sex with me. Who knows if he groomed me into thinking it was I who fancied him and not vice versa? I was still reading The fucking Beano. I was ripe for manipulating. The energy between us confused the hell out of me, a lot more than I'm sure it confused him. Whatever I was in his mind, his feelings towards me were always sexual (he admitted that to me once we started sleeping together) but to my 12 Year old self it was far less clear. He was an inspiration and a mentor and a tutor to me. Not necessarily someone I would have picked as a sexual partner unless cajauled into doing so.

And yes, I suppose it would have been MORE damaging to have sex with someone who I didn't want to have sex with, but if I had done that then either a) I wouldn't have been consenting and it would have been rape or b) I wouldn't have done it more than once and it wouldn't have become a relationship and wouldn't have head fucked me in quite the same way. So that argument kind of becomes invalid.

skyeskyeskye thanks for your kind words. You're quite right, girls have been falling for their teachers for as long as the sky has been blue and bees have been buzzing.... But it doesn't make those relationships right.

After the 2003 reforms and then Jeremy Forrest, I honestly thought that public opinion had moved on and that girls wouldn't have to listen to this victim blaming nonsense anymore. But it seems that, sadly, I was wrong.

HelenPat I think you are missing the major point here: it's not the lenient sentence that had made people most upset, it's the judge's victim blaming comments.

It's not acceptable or even logical for a 16 year old girl to be described as 'manipulating' and 'grooming' an adult who is (a) 44 years old; (b) has years of experience in how adult romantic and sexual relationships work; and (c) has had extensive training in child safeguarding, including how to deal appropriately with inappropriate behaviour from pupils.

If the judge had said she was giving him a suspended sentence because he had already lost his job and been barred from teaching, and in recognition of his previous good character - and then just STOPPED TALKING - this probably wouldn't even have made the papers.

The fact she went on to blame the girl for his behaviour is what has people upset.

And your friends who had affairs with teachers and all lived happily ever after? They are exceptions. They don't disprove the rule and stories like that shouldn't in any way influence how we - or the courts - assess blame in cases such as these.

The thing is for every 1-2 who may have ended up marrying their teachers I would imagine there are a lot of women (like staircase) and men who had there childhoods warped and scarred them emotionally in the long term.

But this detracts from the case in which his behavior was totally unacceptable in a school. With all the safe guarding training that goes on how can it be looked upon lightly.

In addition from a societal view most of my friends would find this behavior very weird and if not borderline paedophillic.

Staircase I didn't realise you were so young when you met, I'm so sorry. I got the impression you were 14 or something. Again, I'm sorry for what you went through and there is of course something seriously wrong with anyone who has sexual feelings towards a 12-year-old. But I don't think it's necessarily true that he would have been charged with rape if you hadn't wanted to have sex with him, or that it might not still have turned into a "relationship". Look at what happened in Rochdale etc. I think most of the gang members were just prosecuted for underage sex, not rape, and it went on for months/years because the girls were scared or overwhelmed or just didn't know how to get themselves out of the situation, because they were groomed basically.

And I never said the "happy-ever-after" cases aren't exceptions (although I'm not sure how exceptional examples like my own are really)...but that's my point, there's a whole range of situations that could fall under these laws, from things that are virtually rape but can't be charged as rape, like Rochdale, to situations involving long-term grooming from a very young age like Staircase had to deal with, to cases like Stuart Kerner that aren't as bad as what happened to Staircase but still exploitative, to relationships with no grooming on either side that leave both people with happy memories, like mine, right through to exceptional cases where they fall in love and get married. All I'm saying is there are not just nuances but whopping big differences, so it's not black and white.

no you do not unless of course you are the more vulnerable one who can be manipulated and taken advantage of

but lets pretend as we have throughout history that females of all ages tempt men to do things that they know they should not to the point where they have no control as we know men just can not help themselves

it is quite simple there is no grey area it is wrong he was very much in the wrong and those that have gone on to form a relationship really where is the equality in these relationships

Berts I get that most of the complaints are about the judge's comments not the actual sentence, although there are people expressing outrage at the sentence too. But the judge did have to talk about whether the girl wanted the relationship or not because that affects the sentence, and she had to address the fact that the jury "did not treat her as a reliable witness" because they found him not guilty of some of the charges which also affected the sentence of course. The only thing she should not have said is the "grooming" part but a lot of people have started using that word the wrong way now, including people from the NSPCC. If campaigners broaden the word "grooming" to include things like just flirting then of course it will start to be used that way by society in general.

Yes but surely the point of this being illegal is that it's there to protect the most vulnerable. It may be the case that if you are a damaged girl, you would be very open to the attentions of an older man, especially one in a position of authority. That is not proper consent, it's taking advantage of someone who thinks they are mature, when you know full well that they are not.

HelenPat I don't understand why you are labouring this point so heavily. Its a bit odd and maybe you should question whether you really did leave your experiences unaffected. You are doing what is called purposive thinking - you have the answer in your head that you want before you examine the evidence and you are unable to reach any other conclusion than the one you have already set out to prove.

You have completely ignored the suggestion that grooming is something that a lot of these men do and that it can be part of their tactics, as can appearing innocent, unworldly, victims themselves (Stuart Kerner claiming he was so tired he couldn't remember his own name is a prime example). From that point of view you could equally argue that it is more pre-meditated than some opportunistic rapes (some victims even deliberately go into careers where they have plenty of access to young vulnerable people). Except you can't do that without evidence, and likewise you cannot attribute a less serious crime to an Accused without that being proven by evidence - there is absolutely no rule fits all as you seem to be suggesting for such cases. The criminal in this instance got a very light sentence indeed and I do wonder where your line of "reason" will lead you next. What you write is actually rather muddled and I wonder if you are not stating what you actually think - is it that you think men should be able to have sexual relations with below 16s and teachers etc with 16-17 year olds without punishment, if the victim says they wanted it? The problem is that at the time of the trial, the victim will still likely be influenced by the grooming, which forms part of the crime. Some victims of grooming may remain under that influence for a large part of their lives...

I find your views very skewed and not really something as a society that we want to follow, because it is too dangerous. There are always going to be a few people who have an old fashioned attitude that an older man, with a job and experience, is always going to be better for a young girl. When in reality, no-one can quantify how much the young girl missed out on with having boyfriends her own age, finding her own way in life and so on.

would we really be having this debate if the relationship was with a male pupil

no because young men and boys are not seen in the same way, they could not possibly tempt a man in the same way the blame would totally be with the teacher as it should be in this case

HouseWhereNobodyLives
Okay, fair enough, I should have checked the news report and yes, some of the Rochdale gang were convicted of rape while others were got on child sex charges. So fine, forget Rochdale and accept my apologies for any unintentional misinformation. Here is a more clear cut example of the sort of situation I was talking about, where it was tantamount to rape but could not be prosecuted as rape because the girl was groomed into agreeing. Thompson rightly got a far longer sentence than he would have if the girl had actually wanted to have sex with him at the time. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413626/Paedophile-P-E-teacher-Glyn-Thompson-Burnley-sex-14-year-old-pupil-school.html

And I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that Stuart Kerner's actions are as bad as grooming someone from the age of 11/12?

And I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that Stuart Kerner's actions are as bad as grooming someone from the age of 11/12?

Its not a competition in how demonic the aggressor appears to Daily Mail readers.

Its a question of evidence, and in this case, what the Prosecution could and could not prove, beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge's comments went too far and were partly irrelevant.

There are lots of reasons why the jury might have acquitted him on the more serious charge of sex with a child (ie when she was 15) that do not necessarily mean they thought the girl had lied - she was a bit unclear about the dates, she couldn't prove that it had happened that side of her 16th birthday etc. The jury might even have thought that they probably did have sex before her 16th birthday, but not been sure beyond reasonable doubt, as it was essentially his word against hers on the dates. The other factors - knowing what his house looked like and what underwear he wore might be much stronger evidence to a relationship having taken place but they don't prove when it happened. And it's the prosecution (ie the state) who decide which charges to press, not the victim.

Aquitting him of the more serious charges does therefore not mean at all that the jury though the girl had lied about them. So it's really out of order for the judge to call her a liar.

HouseWhereNobodyLives Glyn Thompson also got a higher sentence than others on the same charge but where the victim was not unwilling. Staircase mentioned Jeremy Forrest for instance, he got 5 and a half years not 8 like Thompson (even in spite of the overseas excursion in Forrest's case!).