Sex abuse victim 'stalked teacher'

[Inkanta]

'Stuart Kerner, 44, from Kent, conducted an affair with the girl, then 15, at Bexleyheath Academy, south-east London.Handing Kerner a suspended sentence, Judge Joanna Greenberg QC said the victim had become "obsessed" with him.'

The judge is an idiot!

"And it surely makes a difference whether the teacher pursued the pupil or not because otherwise you'd have a situation where a teacher who pressures a teenager into sex would get the same treatment as a teacher who stupidly has sex with a teenager who is as enthusiastic as he is. That can't be right."

In both those situations, though, HelenPat the teacher would have done something that, as an adult, they should know is illegal and immoral. As adults we often have to say 'No' when a child asks for something that isn't good for them - 'No' to chocolate for breakfast every day, 'No' to staying out late on school nights, 'No' to playing age-inappropriate video games - this is pretty much the same.

It is different only in that a teacher should have a heightened awareness of why it is wrong to have a sexual relationship with a pupil, especially one under the age of consent. I cannot imagine that this is not touched upon in teacher training - so whilst I expect any adult to know that it is wrong to have sex with a child, I hold teachers to a higher standard, because they are in a position of authority, and because they really should know better.

They also have back up available - if a teacher feels that a child is forming an unhealthy attachment to them, they can, as I said earlier, go to their head of department or senior management team to ask for help in dealing with the situation.

I hold teachers to a higher standard, because they are in a position of authority, and because they really should know better.

Exactly this. Which is why the age of consent in England and Wales is 18 (not 16) if one person is in a position of authority over the other, such as teacher/pupil.

"As adults we often have to say 'No' when a child asks for something that isn't good for them - 'No' to chocolate for breakfast every day, 'No' to staying out late on school nights, 'No' to playing age-inappropriate video games - this is pretty much the same."

I can't think of a single parent I know who tells their 16-year-old DS or DD what to eat for breakfast. I already struggle with my 9-year-old. The ones of my friends who have teenagers do try and enforce curfews but some still do that to their 18+ 'kids' on the 'my roof my rules' line too. 16-year-olds are in a grey area, not full adults but not children anymore either. They can move out and not tell you where they're going, for example.

A 16-year-old girl can legally have sex with a 50-year-old colleague at her weekend job but not with a 20-year-old assistant teacher at her school, even if he's only just joined and she's not even being taught by him (not the case here, I know). The idea of the former happening to my DD when she's 16 fills me with horror, but if she met a young teacher who she really liked and who seemed nice and treated her well then I'd be a lot more open-minded even though that's technically the illegal one of these two examples.

It's too simplistic to say that having sex with your teacher is going to be automatically 'not good for you'. In my experience it could range from very damaging indeed at one end of the scale, to neutral in the middle, to beneficial at the other end of the scale, depending on the relationship. I would put my own experience at the 'beneficial' end and I think the girl who ended up marrying her teacher would say the same. Losing your virginity with someone your own age can also be good, bad or indifferent depending on the relationship.

If my 17-year-old was wanting chocolate for breakfast every day, damn straight I would be telling him 'No' - thankfully he has learned sense.

But my point was not the specific examples I chose - it was the fact that, as adults, we are supposed to be able to say 'no' to a child when it is the right thing to do.

This was not 'some nice, young teacher' - it was a 44-year-old married man with a family, who should have said 'No' to this girl, or should have told one of his senior colleagues - he should not have had sex with her in a cupboard.

The 16 year old was an adult and enthusiastically consenting. Obviously this is a different situation to one where the teacher rapes a pupil. The judge has not let him off, just taken circumstances into account.

Fair enough and I agree completely with the whole of your final paragraph. My issue is with the black and white "he's a teacher, end of" drum-banging, where some people seem to want to ignore the fact that teacher-pupil relationships are NOT all alike and so we do have to take into account the particular circumstances when dealing with each one. Many comments give the impression of saying that the circumstances are irrelevant because all that matters is he was her teacher, and the judge is taking a lot of heat for her comments but all she was doing was explaining the circumstances that led her to give the sentence that she did.

That was replying to SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius by the way not the post right above...

I was very surprised by this. We had a similar case locally a couple of years back and the teacher was sent to prison as he should have been.

However I was surprised at the time by how many people I knew thought that the prison sentence was too much.

The 16yr old was not an adult, by definition!

Look at his actions, not hers. He is the one who has committed a crime. Why was a 44 yr old man even entertaining thoughts of having sex with a 16yr old child? Why did he think that this was OK or a viable choice?

I don't think it is coincidental that both the behaviour of the girl and the difficulties his wife was having were listed a mitigating factors. Switching the focus away from men's appalling behaviour on to the non-criminal and understandable actions and emotions of women has always been a tactic to excuse their behaviour.

I think it is much better to have a black and white, 'teacher-pupil relationships are bad' rule. I don't think there are, or should be, shades of grey where someone is in a position of authority over a child.

I completely agree, and I believe the teacher in this case has been punished. There were mitigating circumstances though, and it is (rightly) part of our justice system that such circumstances are taken into account.

For all the people saying Oh she was 16, it's legal, it wasn't when the relationship started as I read it,. She was 15.

And totally agree with this comment The bottom line here is that it is expected that some children will develop fixations of teachers, especially if those children are experiencing difficult lives. It is up to the professional, the adult, the teacher to make sure they don't have sex with that troubled child.

I also wonder if this is the start of, I can't think how to explain it but making the word grooming less serious? Does that make sense?

At the minute, to me anyway grooming in this context = someone in a position of power, be that due to job or age or whatever creating situations where they can manipulate another person. It's a subtle thing designed to keep the other person slightly off balance, to lower their defences in order to do something that under normal situation the person would refuse to.

I would see stalking as something different, and already see people using that term in a non serious manner

Sorry I don't think I'm making any sense here, been a long day!

What were the mitigating circumstances, though? And why are those valid?

It's too simplistic to say that having sex with your teacher is going to be automatically 'not good for you'. In my experience it could range from very damaging indeed at one end of the scale, to neutral in the middle, to beneficial at the other end of the scale, depending on the relationship.

But isn't that the very reason for having a blanket ruling? I'm sure that some relationships between teachers/pupils might end happily ever after but they can also be vastly damaging (which is probably the most common outcome) and so that's why they are all against the law - to protect the majority of children.

What were the mitigating circumstances, though? And why are those valid?

Consent is a big and valid mitigating circumstance.
Age is another, if had not been a teacher there would have been no crime.
Also the teachers vulnerable state of mind.

I am not saying what the teacher did is right - of course it is not. However, what he did is not the same a coldly planning and executing the rape of an eight year old.

Crimes are sentenced partially on their severity. The teacher in the news was wrong. The teacher in my example above was wrong. But I think most would agree that my example is a more severe crime than the one in the news.

But isn't that the very reason for having a blanket ruling? I'm sure that some relationships between teachers/pupils might end happily ever after but they can also be vastly damaging (which is probably the most common outcome) and so that's why they are all against the law - to protect the majority of children.

I won't think anyone is arguing that what he did should be legal. The point is that within a crime there are degrees of severity.

"Consent is a big and valid mitigating circumstance.
Age is another, if had not been a teacher there would have been no crime.
Also the teachers vulnerable state of mind."

Actually no not according the this it isn't. Unless you call it a relationship of genuine affection (which is creepy between a 44yr old and 16 yr old). But given that their defence case was about her 'stalking' him that doesn't suggest 'genuine affection'.

What vulnerable state of mind? Give over. He wasn't being abused or had a life-threatening illness. That is excusing his behaviour.

Yes 'stalking' and 'grooming' are not terms that should be applied to children or vulnerable adults. These are quite nasty and undermining terms that the judge used there with no thought or sensitivity to the victims emotional process, or vulnerability.

In this consent is a red herring. If there had been no consent, it would have been tried as rape, not as sexual activity with a child in breach of trust when the girl was over 16.

Agreed that, if the man had not been in a position of trust, then it wouldn't have been a crime, but I'm going to assume that this is why the clause was specifically written into law, that we expect better from people in positions of trust.

The teacher wasn't in a vulnerable state of mind. The relationship had been ongoing, it just so happened that they had full sex for the first time a couple of days after his wife's miscarriage, and I'm not sure that that is actually mitigation, it just looks like someone trying to excuse their shitty behaviour.

Crimes are prosecuted according to their severity. Your example of a the 8 year old wouldn't have been prosecuted under the same part of the SOA, it's like comparing apples with oranges. The sentencing guidelines for the crime for which he was convicted are pretty clear, even given the severity, the sentence (18 months imprisonment) is about right. The Court of Appeal has not given any general guidance as to when a sentence should be suspended so the suspension could be seen as being reasonable.

The judges comments in this case, if they have been correctly reported are indefensible, however.

I don't care if some people have relationships with teachers that are positive for them; the fact is, for most pupils they will not be positive and it's the vulnerable ones we need to protect. Also, you have to look at the behaviour of the teacher: what is s/he getting out of having a sexual relationship with a child, even if that child ends up feeling positive about the whole experience? There is something very sick about someone wanting to enter such an unequal relationship. We can all see the attraction for the child - but for the adult?

Also the notion that he was stalked by this child is bollocks. If a child behaves inappropriately, you're supposed to report it to your line manager and protect yourself against false allegations etc. This bloke didn't do that. Because he wasn't stalked, he was grooming

I think there is another issue here as well concerning the judiciary & the training they do or don't receive around these issues. I have a gut feeling that there are a number of them who either don't know enough about or don't accept that grooming of young people happens, this is hardly the first instance of remarks like this. It appears that the law will only protect young people if their behaviour is above reproach, I think we should be genuinely concerned. For what it's worth I think the blame lies squarely with the teacher, irrespective of the girl's behaviour, he was hardly a rookie teacher straight out of college & with no experience of life. He knew what he was getting into & almost certainly knew the consequences.