Dates of birth of convicted abusers

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 446 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by richardb »

So much has gone on that it can be hard to keep track.

cstegerlewis
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:17 pm
Real Name: Craig Steger-Lewis
Location: Tring UK
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by cstegerlewis »

max_ratcliffe wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 11:02 pm
Husband committed very serious offences against one person
Max, I recently met up with some of our contemporaries, and was frankly shocked by some comments on Husbands behaviour with girls on our year and above. He has been convicted for his actions against one girl, who I don’t believe is the same person (the dates don’t match) but it appears it may have been a pattern of behaviour.

Obviously I can’t share any more as I don’t have facts and I have no idea if the others have given police interviews.

The fact he was in some sort of league with Dobbie came out in last years case. I guess it might be better as your are a long way away.
Craig Steger-Lewis
Ba.B 25, Mid B 25, Mid A42
1982-1989

max_ratcliffe
3rd Former
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:06 am
Real Name: Max Ratcliffe
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by max_ratcliffe »

Hi Craig,

Sent you a PM. Not sure if it's actually got to you - seems to be stuck in my outbox.

Cheers,

User avatar
jtaylor
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:32 am
Real Name: Julian Taylor
Location: Wantage, OXON
Has thanked: 60 times
Been thanked: 332 times
Contact:

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by jtaylor »

FYI, oddly, in PHPBB forums, messages sit in the Outbox until they’re read by the recipient - then show in Sent Items.
Julian Taylor-Gadd
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992
Image
Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
http://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.

DazedandConfused
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:20 pm
Real Name: J
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by DazedandConfused »

Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 446 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by richardb »

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 made a relationship in abuse of a position of trust an offence for the first time.

This includes pupils up to the age of 18.

The Act came into force in May 2004.
These users thanked the author richardb for the post:
DazedandConfused (Sun May 05, 2019 2:34 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

Janey Jam-Jar
UF (Upper Fourth)
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:56 am
Real Name: Catherine/CJ
Location: Devon
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by Janey Jam-Jar »

I wonder if the school stipulated in its own rules anything about pupil/teacher relationships at any point from living memory onwards? And whether that changed when it became co-ed?

Of course, whether it's law or not, a person's own ethical compass 'ought' to come into play. My husband teaches at university. There is no law against him having a relationship with a student over the age of 16 but ethically it transgresses all sorts of boundaries. (Plus he'd have me to deal with ... :axe: )
These users thanked the author Janey Jam-Jar for the post:
Pe.A (Thu May 09, 2019 8:20 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 446 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by richardb »

Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 sets out the offence and it applies to a child under the age of 18.

So those relationships with 17 year old would now be criminal offences.

Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by Pe.A »

DazedandConfused wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 pm
Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.
That is actually a very good point to make. It's certainly relevant when looking at the way the school should have/shouldn't have dealt with certain things at the time. The term grooming wasn't even a coined phrase let alone a crime. It's easy enough for events of the past to be viewed through the prism of the present

DazedandConfused
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:20 pm
Real Name: J
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by DazedandConfused »

Pe.A wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pm
DazedandConfused wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 pm
Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.
That is actually a very good point to make. It's certainly relevant when looking at the way the school should have/shouldn't have dealt with certain things at the time. The term grooming wasn't even a coined phrase let alone a crime. It's easy enough for events of the past to be viewed through the prism of the present
There’s no way that the school can honestly have thought that affairs between pupils and staff were acceptable, even if they weren’t illegal. Yet they didn’t seem to learn any lessons or heed warnings to stop it from happening again and again.
These users thanked the author DazedandConfused for the post:
richardb (Mon May 06, 2019 4:00 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

scrub
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:11 pm
Real Name: Tim
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by scrub »

Pe.A wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pm
DazedandConfused wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 pm
Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.
That is actually a very good point to make. It's certainly relevant when looking at the way the school should have/shouldn't have dealt with certain things at the time. The term grooming wasn't even a coined phrase let alone a crime. It's easy enough for events of the past to be viewed through the prism of the present
While it's true that 'grooming' wasn't a term specifically used in those days (in that particular context anyway), it should also be remembered that 'in loco parentis' was, and indeed, still is, a term widely used that has a relevance to this whole affair.

In practical terms we understood this at the time to mean that the staff of the school were taking on the temporary role of parents for the children placed in their care. With that in mind, I'm hard pressed to think of any parent I've met who'd dismiss the words of their children to protect someone who was abusing them. I'm also hard pressed to think of any parent who wouldn't seek a rather extreme form of retribution against anyone who caused their child any harm, once they found out about it.

You could call this argument bleeding heart hyperbole, and you may be right, after all I'm a very simple person when it comes to these matters. To me though, it really is quite simple; when you take on the responsibilities of a parent, you care for those kids as if they were your own. On top of that, I don't think I've ever met a single person for whom legality and morality are exactly the same thing in all instances, especially when it comes to children.
These users thanked the author scrub for the post:
richardb (Mon May 06, 2019 7:00 pm)
Rating: 5.88%
ThB 89-91, PeA 93-96

LHA
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:35 pm
Real Name: Charles Henry
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by LHA »

Pe.A wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pm
DazedandConfused wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 pm
Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.
That is actually a very good point to make. It's certainly relevant when looking at the way the school should have/shouldn't have dealt with certain things at the time. The term grooming wasn't even a coined phrase let alone a crime. It's easy enough for events of the past to be viewed through the prism of the present
Pe A - that's the second time you have come on here to say that teachers having sexual relationships which students aged 17 isn't really that bad. A bit odd really.

Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by Pe.A »

DazedandConfused wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:59 pm
Pe.A wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pm
DazedandConfused wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 pm
Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.
That is actually a very good point to make. It's certainly relevant when looking at the way the school should have/shouldn't have dealt with certain things at the time. The term grooming wasn't even a coined phrase let alone a crime. It's easy enough for events of the past to be viewed through the prism of the present
There’s no way that the school can honestly have thought that affairs between pupils and staff were acceptable, even if they weren’t illegal. Yet they didn’t seem to learn any lessons or heed warnings to stop it from happening again and again.
I didnt actually say that.The pupil/teacher relations thing obviously wasnt viewed favourably by the school hence the mandatory departures, including the Bandmaster. The point i was making was one based on the change to the Law in 2003, something that is easily overlooked...

Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by Pe.A »

LHA wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:15 pm
Pe.A wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pm
DazedandConfused wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 pm
Am I right in thinking that a relationship with a pupil wasn’t illegal until 2003? I guess grooming a girl over the age of 16 until she consents to sex wouldn’t have been an offence prior to that date.

Speaking in very general terms and about nobody in particular, of course.
That is actually a very good point to make. It's certainly relevant when looking at the way the school should have/shouldn't have dealt with certain things at the time. The term grooming wasn't even a coined phrase let alone a crime. It's easy enough for events of the past to be viewed through the prism of the present
Pe A - that's the second time you have come on here to say that teachers having sexual relationships which students aged 17 isn't really that bad. A bit odd really.
Did i actually say that or are you putting words/meanings in my mouth...? The point i was making is that change in the Law c. 2003 is something which is easily overlooked and im not talking the more serious offences. The Bandmaster one is a good case in point. Unethical then, yes. Both had to leave as their positions were untenable. Illegal then, no. But a crime for the last 15 years...

DazedandConfused
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:20 pm
Real Name: J
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers

Post by DazedandConfused »

There is likely much that has been reported that cannot result in arrests as occurred before 2003 and therefore deemed consensual.
These users thanked the author DazedandConfused for the post:
richardb (Mon May 06, 2019 7:01 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

Post Reply