Oh deary dear

At Number One Daughter's school: a young male teacher is 'no longer on
the premises'.

Arrested and charged after an inadvisable exchange of text messages with
an under-age pupil.

Escorted off the premises by Plod, but best of all....

.....it was the day the Ofsted inspectors were in.

I haven't stopped laughing since. Nor, it must be said, has Number One
Daughter, who has a *nasty* sense of humour.

 

Heh

I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that one in the head's office . .
.. . .

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby

"Caps on, no tea, no biscuits"

 

The Older Gentleman said:

She still got a copy of the texts?

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

"Arthur, bring the boys out. That bitch Maggie will cave in before you
can say 'bah gooom'!"

Oh sorry! Min*o*r! With you now.

Are you kidding? It'll be an offence under the "Just thought of it,
sounds a bit iffy to me" act of ten-minutes-ago.

What are you, some sort of paedo-lover?

 

It doesn't have to be a "crime". It can be "gross professional misconduct",
which is sackable anyway. However, any responsible organisation would call
in plod to investigate if there was evidence that indicated a possible
sexual relationship between an adult and a child - hence the involvement of
plod in this case.

 

Is that actually illegal, or just inappropriate? Assuming it was just
text messages.

 

Pupils are under-age, so the law covering how you may behave with them
is quite strict (teachers are in loco parentis).

 

I suppose it depends on the content of the message but I really
wouldn't be happy he was sending them to un under-age child of mine.

It's not really a big deal though because he could be a serial child
abuser and still get out in 7 years.

 

I bet she knows the recipient as well

 

Whilst I agree, there's also no context. Is this under-age as in a
sixth-former under 18, or another a month shy of her 16th birthday, or
an 11 yr old? Personally, I think what is appropriate is different in
all of those situations.

 

If the people are truly innocent then they have nothing to fear. And
if it saves the life of a a single child...

 

oh come on, not really; old enough to bleed: old enough to breed ;-)

 

Or "If there's grass on the wicket..."

 

You can spot all the people with out daughters in this thread, can't you ?

 

"We all want ours sons to be the sort of men we wouldn't let our daughters
go out with"

 

Ben said:

Maybe for a student of 16+ but not for anyone under 16.
Certainly my daughters only 12 and i dread to think how i would react
if it was my daughter

 

Remember, Kids Come First!
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
(in the hands of a skilful lover)

Dave H.

 

we don't know the content of the SMS (and if the girl has made allegations)
but someone thought the case met the threshold for a "section 47" child
protection enquiry.

 

When I worked in residential child care, having one of the kid's phone no.
in a personal mobile was considered a discipliniary offence.