John Stape is an imbecile
umo
imprisonment and career suicide engaging in statutory rape of a 16
year old. John compounds his stupidity and makes matters exponentially
worse by revealing to the immature Rosie that her mother made sexual
advances. There was not even one good reason to give Rosie that
information. John is so gottdam moronic he would have a tough time
finding his ass with both hands. To paraphrase David Platt: "Fiz is
Stephen Hawking compared to John"
alanG
> John Stape <snip>
*Harry Sullivan* is an imbecile! [Doctor Who: Revenge of the Cybermen]
alan G
Enzo Matrix
Excellent points - all of them.
The only one I would argue with is the "statutory rape". In the UK, the age
of consent is 16, (with the exception of Norn Irn, where it is 17) so it
would have been perfectly legal for John to have a sexual relationship with
Rursie at the time they first took up together. I also believe that there is
no crime of "statutory rape" in the UK. Adults who have consensual sex with
a person under the age of consent can be charged with "indecent assault" or
"sexual activity with a minor". (I know that the term "consensual sex" is an
oxymoron when used in this context. A person below the age of consent is
legally considered unable to give that consent. In this case I use it to
refer to a situation where the young person says "yes" and no coercion is
involved.)
The situation has now changed. Rursie is now John's pupil and John is
therefore in a "position of trust", in accordance with the Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act, 2003, Subsection 4 Para 5. A sexual relationship between
them is illegal until Rursie turns 18 or leaves the school (Id. Subsection 3
Para 1) - but see below. If charged with an offence, John could be liable
"to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine (not
exceeding the statutory maximum), or to both." (Id. Subsection 3 Para 4)
Note in the above quote, the words in brackets have been added by myself.
The Act is badly worded and therefore flawed - as are a lot of items of
legislation introduced by the current government. As you can see from the
original text, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/20000044.htm , the
punishment for a summary conviction (ie in a Magistrate's Court) mentions a
fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. The very next entry, regarding
conviction on indictment (in Crown Court), fails to mention a statutory
maximum for the fine. Does this mean that an unlimited fine can be imposed
in this case? The situation is unclear.
Another area where the Act is unclear is in Subsection 3 Para 3. The Act is
attempting to catch every situation and so deals specifically with the
situation where a person in a position of trust was in a sexual relationship
with a person below the age of 18 *before* the law came into effect. In
attempting to be all things to all people, the Act has failed, because it
doesn't take into account the very situation that Corrie is now exploring.
John and Rursie were in a legal sexual relationship which only became
illegal once Rursie became John's pupil. Under this law, they would be
expected to end their relationship, but how can that be fair and equitable
when a couple who were in a relationship before the law came into effect
would *not* be required to end their relationship? Suppose that Rursie and
John were married. Rursie then goes back to school. Would they then be
required to abstain from sexual relations, even though they were legally
married? This law would seem to require that. It is a flawed law and flawed
laws are useless.
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Nick
> John Stape is an even bigger idiot than Kirk Sutherland.
Yes, but isn't it fun? - Rosie seems to have a flair for comedy!
Nick
Avalanche
<snip>
Rosie Webster though; I wouldn't say no.
Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
engage in sexual activity with a teacher? Just wanted to be absolutely
clear on this one..
AlfaMS
> On 13 Nov, 10:30, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Rosie Webster though; I wouldn't say no.
>
> Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
> engage in sexual activity with a teacher?
Laws differ from country to county, and the age of consent is a bit weak
in this construct, as there is also the fact of dependency involved. If
bad comes to worse, it will be up to the judge, and perhaps the jury to
decide whether it was OK, or not. So I would advise everyone to stay
clear. Teach, or pupil; store-keeper, or apprentice; uni prof, or
student. IMHO *any* of those constructs are at least questionable, since
there always is an element of power, and one of dependency involved.
Whether the latter examples would be prosecuted where you actually
reside I don't know. But in my book, that would be sailing very close to
the term 'exploitation', indeed. So - should you have written your
contribution in search for advice: mine would be you'd better look for
company in your age group. But then, that is only IMHO..
--
Josef
Roger T.
>
> Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
> engage in sexual activity with a teacher? Just wanted to be absolutely
> clear on this one..
As someone else pointed out, the law is fuzzy.
However, in Canada, or at least in BC, a student 13 years and older can have
sex with anyone providing that person is not a "person of authority".
So a 13 year old girl can have sex with her 50 year old neighbour and it's
legal unless he's a policeman, her minister/priest etc., her girl
guide/brownie leader, team coach, a teacher in her school (maybe illegal if
he teaches in the same school district ), doctor etc., etc..
If the neighbour is a teacher who works in another school district, then
he's OK.
The law is also a bit vague about picking up an underage female drinker in a
bar. If she's 13 and over, and she is a stranger but you fall into one of
the above categories, you may be subject to charges but the defence will be
that the bar was responsible for confirming her age and the adult male can
assume that they have checked her ID and she is therefore of legal drinking
age.
All very confusing.
--
Cheers.
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude: 48° 25' North
Longitude: 123° 21' West
CP
> > Rosie Webster though; I wouldn't say no.
>
> > Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
> > engage in sexual activity with a teacher? Just wanted to be absolutely
> > clear on this one..
>
> As someone else pointed out, the law is fuzzy.
>
> However, in Canada, or at least in BC, a student 13 years and older can have
> sex with anyone providing that person is not a "person of authority".
All this talk about sex!! You are Bren AICMFP!!!
Katherine
No! A teacher/student sexual relationship is NEVER acceptable, That
doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, though.
TTFN
Katherine
Roger T.
>> Rosie Webster though; I wouldn't say no.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
>> engage in sexual activity with a teacher? Just wanted to be absolutely
>> clear on this one..
>
> No! A teacher/student sexual relationship is NEVER acceptable, That
> doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, though.
Even if it's not always illegal.
Profs, assistants and staff at Uni for example.
Our district policy is that even if the student is 18 or older, and thus
"legal", ANY employee, not just teachers, will be fired if they engage in a
sexual relationship with any student, regardless of age even if that student
is not a student of our district, when the 13 years and older law applies
However, I believe prosecution can only take place of the student is 17
years or younger and if the child is a student on the teachers' or staff
members' district of employment.
Best bet is, of course, resist the temptation. It's never worth it.
Mudge
On 11/13/2007 16:42:00 "Roger T." wrote:
>>> Rosie Webster though; I wouldn't say no.
>>> Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
>>> engage in sexual activity with a teacher? Just wanted to be absolutely
>>> clear on this one..
>> No! A teacher/student sexual relationship is NEVER acceptable, That
>> doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, though.
> Even if it's not always illegal.
> Profs, assistants and staff at Uni for example.
> Our district policy is that even if the student is 18 or older, and thus
> "legal", ANY employee, not just teachers, will be fired if they engage in
> a sexual relationship with any student, regardless of age even if that
> student is not a student of our district, when the 13 years and older law
> applies However, I believe prosecution can only take place of the student
> is 17 years or younger and if the child is a student on the teachers' or
> staff members' district of employment.
> Best bet is, of course, resist the temptation. It's never worth it.
Unless, of course, you are being paid for it
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in sunnyish, 7C, Calgary)
End Global warming ~ eliminate the cause ~ exterminate Al Gore
Mark
"Avalanche" <aku...@insecurities.org> wrote in message
news:1194983666.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Nov, 10:30, "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Rosie Webster though; I wouldn't say no.
>
> Out of curiosity, does that mean that once you're 18 you're allowed to
> engage in sexual activity with a teacher?
Probably best to get the teachers consent first.
mark
CP
Or a note from your mum.
Ophelia
LOL
Enzo Matrix
In the context of criminal law then yes. However, most if not all
educational institutions with have rules and regulations forbidding staff
members from having such relationships with their students.
Alex Cunningham
>
> However, in Canada, or at least in BC, a student 13 years and older can
> have
> sex with anyone providing that person is not a "person of authority".
>
> So a 13 year old girl can have sex with her 50 year old neighbour and it's
> legal unless he's a policeman, her minister/priest etc., her girl
> guide/brownie leader, team coach, a teacher in her school (maybe illegal
> if
> he teaches in the same school district ), doctor etc., etc..
Under the Criminal Code of Canada the age of consent is presently 14. That
however is about to be changed. The Conservatives are pushing a crime bill
through Parliament that will make the age of consent 16. The same bill is
also worded to change parts of the laughable, Youth Justice Criminal Act. It
is planned to increase sentences for youth. (12 t0 19 year olds) who commit
serious crimes and also make it easier to have them tried in adult court.
--
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.
Roger T.
> however is about to be changed. The Conservatives are pushing a crime bill
> through Parliament that will make the age of consent 16. The same bill is
> also worded to change parts of the laughable, Youth Justice Criminal Act.
> It is planned to increase sentences for youth. (12 t0 19 year olds) who
> commit serious crimes and also make it easier to have them tried in adult
> court.
Any change upwards is good. We were told the age of consent is 16.
Jim Lawton
<sly_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote: As someone else pointed
>>out, the law is fuzzy.
>>
>> However, in Canada, or at least in BC, a student 13 years and older can
>> have
>> sex with anyone providing that person is not a "person of authority".
>>
>> So a 13 year old girl can have sex with her 50 year old neighbour and it's
>> legal unless he's a policeman, her minister/priest etc., her girl
>> guide/brownie leader, team coach, a teacher in her school (maybe illegal
>> if
>> he teaches in the same school district ), doctor etc., etc..
>
>Under the Criminal Code of Canada the age of consent is presently 14. That
>however is about to be changed. The Conservatives are pushing a crime bill
>through Parliament that will make the age of consent 16. The same bill is
>also worded to change parts of the laughable, Youth Justice Criminal Act. It
>is planned to increase sentences for youth. (12 t0 19 year olds) who commit
>serious crimes and also make it easier to have them tried in adult court.
So people in Canada are "youths" (what's the female equivalent?) until
they are 19? When do they get the vote. I get heartily sick of hearing
kids of 18 being referred to as "men" and "women" over here.
--
Jim
a Yorkshire polymoth
Nick
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
~
Oh, he'll come a cropper especially if he dallies with Sally, but the
MEMORIES - he'll look back on those oh so sweet memories, lol!
Nick
Katherine
>
> So people in Canada are "youths" (what's the female equivalent?) until
> they are 19? When do they get the vote. I get heartily sick of hearing
> kids of 18 being referred to as "men" and "women" over here.
Jim, I'll tell you summat even more ridiculous! In the Catholic
Church,
you can be a member of their "youth" until you are 34, and attend
their youth rallies anywhere in the world. Paid for through fund-
raising, and heavily subsidized.
TTFN
Katherine
Harry
Yes, but I shouldn't think many of the priests are that interested in
anyone much over the age of 16......
John W..
not forget that.
Jim Lawton
wrote:
It's not *age* that makes those people into men and women.
Alex Cunningham
>>>"Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote: As someone else pointed
>>>out, the law is fuzzy.
>>>
>>> However, in Canada, or at least in BC, a student 13 years and older can
>>> have
>>> sex with anyone providing that person is not a "person of authority".
>>>
>>> So a 13 year old girl can have sex with her 50 year old neighbour and
>>> it's
>>> legal unless he's a policeman, her minister/priest etc., her girl
>>> guide/brownie leader, team coach, a teacher in her school (maybe illegal
>>> if
>>> he teaches in the same school district ), doctor etc., etc..
>>Alex Cunningham"wrote:
>>Under the Criminal Code of Canada the age of consent is presently 14. That
>>however is about to be changed. The Conservatives are pushing a crime bill
>>through Parliament that will make the age of consent 16. The same bill is
>>also worded to change parts of the laughable, Youth Justice Criminal Act.
>>It
>>is planned to increase sentences for youth. (12 t0 19 year olds) who
>>commit
>>serious crimes and also make it easier to have them tried in adult court.
>"Jim Lawton" <use...@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote
> So people in Canada are "youths" (what's the female equivalent?) until
> they are 19? When do they get the vote. I get heartily sick of hearing
> kids of 18 being referred to as "men" and "women" over here.
I did say that the, Youth Criminal Justice Act was laughable. :-(
Alex Cunningham
in message news:5qo42vF...@mid.individual.net...
>"John W.." <Jo...@Liverpool18.5.com> wrote: They are men and women enough
>to go and die for their country, let us not forget that.
But our legal system protects them until the age of 19 from serious
punishment for serious crimes. The most time they can do for premeditated
murder is 3 years in a youth correctional facility that is a long way from a
real jail. :-)
Enzo Matrix
At what age do they get the vote?
Alex Cunningham
>>Alex Cunningham wrote:
>> But our legal system protects them until the age of 19 from serious
>> punishment for serious crimes. The most time they can do for
>> premeditated murder is 3 years in a youth correctional facility that
>> is a long way from a real jail. :-(
>"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote At what age do they get the vote?
Nineteen. Same age they can drink alcohol and purchase tobacco legally.
But they can join the forces at 18 and drive a car at 16.
Katherine
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:44:07 -0800 (PST), Katherine
>
Generalizations are always wrong. <g>
TTFN
Katherine
Harry
Mea culpa ;->
Crunchy Frog
news:47489197$0$1344$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
Gribbit! Gribbit!
--
Crunchy Frog
Nick
> "Harry" <ha...@hotmail1.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47489197$0$1344$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:46:44 -0800 (PST), Katherine
>
> >>On Nov 23, 7:50 am, Harry <ha...@hotmail1.com> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:44:07 -0800 (PST), Katherine
>
> >>> <kburg...@crrstv.net> wrote:
> >>> >On Nov 23, 6:04 am, Jim Lawton <usen...@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote:
>
> >>> >> So people in Canada are "youths" (what's the female equivalent?)
> >>> >> until
> >>> >> they are 19? When do they get the vote. I get heartily sick of
> >>> >> hearing
> >>> >> kids of 18 being referred to as "men" and "women" over here.
>
> >>> >Jim, I'll tell you summat even more ridiculous! In the Catholic
> >>> >Church,
> >>> >you can be a member of their "youth" until you are 34, and attend
> >>> >their youth rallies anywhere in the world. Paid for through fund-
> >>> >raising, and heavily subsidized.
>
> >>> Yes, but I shouldn't think many of the priests are that interested in
> >>> anyone much over the age of 16......
>
> >>Generalizations are always wrong. <g>
>
> > Mea culpa ;->
>
> Gribbit! Gribbit!
>
> --
<g> Thanks, Crunchy - it's always good when folk agree!
Nick
Katherine
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:46:44 -0800 (PST), Katherine
>
> >Generalizations are always wrong. <g>
>
> Mea culpa ;->-
That's OK.
TTFN
Katherine