Re: Dates of birth of convicted abusers
Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:01 am
So much has gone on that it can be hard to keep track.
Welcome to the unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum - for discussing everything CH/Old Blue related. All pupils, parents, families, staff, Old Blues and anyone else related to CH are welcome to browse the boards, register and contribute.
https://www.chforum.info/php/
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.max_ratcliffe wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 11:02 pm Husband committed very serious offences against one person
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 presentDazedandConfused 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.
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.Pe.A wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pmThat 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 presentDazedandConfused 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.
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.Pe.A wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pmThat 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 presentDazedandConfused 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.
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 wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pmThat 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 presentDazedandConfused 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.
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...DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:59 pmThere’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.Pe.A wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pmThat 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 presentDazedandConfused 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.
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...LHA wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 5:15 pmPe 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 wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:44 pmThat 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 presentDazedandConfused 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.