Samantha Grixti, a teacher, has been sentenced to 180 hours of forced labour (aka community service) after being convicted of kissing a 16 year old pupil.
As I have said before, it may be unprofessional to have relationships with pupils, but it is not a matter for the law. At 16 people are over the age of consent, and free to embark on sexual relationships with anyone else over 16. It is perverse to make it a criminal offence for others to have relationships with them.
All the more so when the state is happy to support widespread promiscuity among the under 16s, offering confidential contraceptive and abortion services, often in defiance of parental wishes, and seeks to encourage unconventional relationships, for example through 'gay marriage'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was under the impression that it IS illegal to have relations with anyone in a position of authority, for example a doctor or teacher, until you are 18. (I could be misinformed.)
As a 16-year-old myself I can vouch for the fact that teenagers are often driven more by their hormones than sensible thought. A person in a position of authority is all the more attractive for it, however unwise pursuing a relationship with them may be. Therefore it ought to be the teacher's responsibility to put a halt to inappropriate behaviour.
You've also got to consider that if students were to have relationships with teachers, favouritism would be through the roof. I personally don't think I'd want a teacher to be attracted to me (not my own teacher anyway) - the relationship between a teacher and pupil should be, in my opinion, free from anything sexual.
Would it be different from your perspective if the teacher had been a man, and the student a younger girl?
Because something may be undesirable doesn't mean it should be illegal.
John Prescott's position of authority made it undesirable for him to have an affair with one of his staff, and perhaps he should resign, but it doesn't mean he should be prosecuted.
And while a child may be more vulnerable than a secretary, a) there has to be line drawn somewhere; b) there are good reasons to draw it at the age of consent (not the least of which are clarity and consistency); and c) these are cases of mutual consent and indeed love.
No, my perspective would not be different were it a man. One of the cases which came to light a few months ago, when Ruth Kelly was embarrassed, was of a teacher who had an under-age relationship and yet was permitted to resume teaching. The teacher concerned was a man who later married the girl and had three children with her in the course of a long marriage. It happens, and it may be unconventional, but need not be sinister.
I find it refreshing that you have such thoughts Tim, I agree it was some what sensationalised by the media. it was just a kiss not sex. and it was sami who has paid the price.
It's mad that she actually ended up in court just for kissing a boy who was over the legal age of consent anyway.
When I was in the sixth form I had a full-on relationship with one of the teachers at my school. I was 16, he was 31. We agreed to finish when I went to uni. It hasn't screwed me up, and we're still good mates.
I think I got a lot out of it. I can see that some people might be screwed up by it, but that's the same as any relationship. Once people are 16 we trust them to make their own minds up about who they have sex with.
Tess, I honestly think you should chill out about it. I was over 16, and looking back (I'm 29 now) I was more than capable of making decisions about relationships. Plenty of my mates were seeing other 16 year olds. If I was in the same position now I'd be really angry that the government thought it was OK to say that I could sleep with some men but not others.
Post a Comment