Untitled

[2kidzandi]

In secondary schools, colleges and universities inappropriate relationships of a sexual nature are sometimes formed between students and teachers. There has been a recent debate about whether or not teachers who get inappropriately involved with students on or over the age of consent should actually face prosecution and be included on the sexual offences register. So it is generally accepted that abuse, or at the very least unethical behaviour, can and does happen within schools by certified teachers. I think it would be safe to assume that most of these relationships are of a heterosexual nature and involve a larger proportion of male teachers than female ones. Would it be fair, therefore, to require that every would-be male teacher be subjected to extra police or welfare checks "just in case" they may become involved with a student in an unethical way? Would it be fair to subject male teachers, nursery workers etc, to more checks than their female counterparts just because there exists a greater proportion of male peodophiles than female Ps in society? I think many would say that such a suggestion was unreasonable. So what basis is there then, to suggest that parents who have their children full time should be subjected to extra supervision than other parents, just because a tiny minority "may" use the excuse of HE to perpetrate their crimes?

[2kidzandi]

This was supposed to be a message added to the thread can he be a cover for child abuse. I created a new thread by accident. Its obviously past my bedtime.

[PuzzleRocks]

Bumping for you.