Oh deary dear

Presumably the teacher had the sense to wear a condom while texting?

 

Marc said:

Yes I take the point re the learning difficulties angle, but in law if
she is 16+ surely it's not relevant as she's not a minor? However IANAL

 

It sort of did and sort of didn't - CA no longer uses the term but if
you check section2 (9) it gives provision for the parent to "arrange
for some or all of it [1] to be met by one or more persons acting on
his behalf." and it comes under good practice rather than legal
responsibility.

[1] where 'it' is parental responsibility.

 

I was trying to work out which daughters were lesbians.

 

Under the Children Act 1989, teachers have a duty of care towards
their pupils, traditionally referred to as 'in loco
parentis'. Legally, while not bound by parental responsibility,
teachers must behave as any reasonable parent would do in promoting
the welfare and safety of children in their care.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=370916

 

What's wrong with that? Plenty of ex scouts (and related associations)
in this group I'm sure.

 

I'm planning on becoming one if I can figure out a way of my job not
making it impossible.

 

heheh, I'm already an ex-Scout. I meant a leader.

 

we have at least 1 other scout leader on the IoM

 

was he a peripatetic workaholic?

 

16 may be the age of consent but she is a minor covered under the Children
Act until 18. The test is whether she has or could "suffer significant
harm". Only those with the full facts will be able to decide if this is the
case.

 

To be "arrested and charged"? I think you may be wrong.

 

.... it should get a lawnmower.

 

The same rules apply to us (Ski Club leaders) when skiing with
children (without their parents). Parents sign a form effectively
granting ILP status, which itself may have little legal meaning,
except as evidence that we're acting with their knowledge and
permission.

Can be a dodgy area though, as on ex-rep found when he hooked up with
a youngster on a holiday. She was 18, IIRC, but it was still deemed
totally out-of-order, although clearly no crime was committed. He was
instantly giving his marching orders, as was only right and proper.

I mean, getting caught like that was totally stupid.

 

doetnietcomputeren said:

*waves*

 

Marc said:

I agree that theres a position of trust / vulnerability issue but a 16
year old girl legally meets the age of consent I'm quite sure

 

I'm intrigued by the recent changes in legislation.

When I was in the 6th form at school, at least a couple of 6th form
girls were shagging teachers.

Always assumed it was one of the main motivations behind becoming a
teacher in a school with a 6th form.

 

That sort of thing will nowadays find the teacher being asked to resign
or even sacked.

 

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

ITYM "banged up for a long time".

We don't live in the same world we grew up in.

 

Donnie said:

Shouldnt reply to oneself I know, but just seen that apparantly if
she's under 18 she's covered by the Childrens Act according to a post
just made up there by wessie. Didn't know that.