Dates of birth of convicted abusers

[richardb]

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

[cstegerlewis]

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.

[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,

[jtaylor]

FYI, oddly, in PHPBB forums, messages sit in the Outbox until they’re read by the recipient - then show in Sent Items.

[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]

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.

[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 ... )

[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]

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]

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.

[scrub]

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.

[LHA]

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]

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]

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]

There is likely much that has been reported that cannot result in arrests as occurred before 2003 and therefore deemed consensual.