Anyone else think the wording of this sexual abuse case article on the Beeb a little 'off'?

[Christmasisshit]

The headline reads 'Cambridge teacher banned for sexual relationships with pupils' www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64949845 The age of the pupils is not given in the article, so it's hard to know whether the reporter used age as justification not to describe this as sexual abuse of pupils (minors).

Later in the article, more damning descriptions appear, but these are quotes, not the words from the reporter

'In their decision the panel concluded the teacher had "exploited vulnerable pupils for his own sexual gratification".
They banned him from teaching indefinitely stating he presented a "real and ongoing risk" to pupils.
A spokesperson for The Leys School said the historic abuse "is obviously something that we take extremely seriously".'

I’d guess they are being circumspect because there is probably a lack of concrete evidence because it occurred a long time ago. Therefore they are quoting what people have said (allowed) rather than stating the information as factual when they have no proof.

What was it that you felt was off about the wording?

Calling it ‘sexual relationships with pupils’ rather than sexual abuse?

Calling it ‘sexual relationships with pupils’ rather than sexual abuse?

I presume it's because he was never charged, despite a police investigation.

Could be (for example) because the relationship started when they were legally adults.

Teachers can be sanctioned for lots of things that are unprofessional and abuse of power but not illegal.