If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
if she wasn't forced, she deserves to lose her job and go onto the sexual offenders registers for abusing a position of trust
Personally I am a little suspicious of her story but I haven't seen all of the evidence.
My point was that the 18-year-old girl recently sent to prison behaved less disgracefully- at least she didn't force the man with a screwdriver and then lie about it- yet I will bet my bottom dollar that this little twat of a teenager won't see any punishment at all.
Most rape victims don't report the crime- why would this teacher be any different? She wouldn't have been believed- as proven by the fact that the police and CPS railroaded through this abhorrent prosecution instead of prosecuting the boy for indecent assault.
All, we know is that a jury of her peers felt they could no convict on the basis of reasonable doubt. They could be wrong. Or it could be they all felt that she probably was lying, but weren't sure beyond reasonable doubt.
The video evidence also didn't see any evidence of a screwdriver being pointed at her head, so its probably not 100% reliable either.
To be honest your point seems to be that if someone who was found innocent the other person involved is automatically guilty. Shall we transfer that to rape? Does that mean as only 6% of rape allegations result in conviction the other 94% are lying and wasting police time and should be prosecuted? Because even I as a non-lawyer can recognise some flaws in the 'not guilty' prosecute the alleged viction approach.
That could be true. But you don't know. The fact she didn't report it could be because she feared she wouldn't be believed or because it didn't take place. Unless there are some facts you know which the rest of us don't I would guess you don't know the correct version.
Given that you seem to think because she was found innocent the boy is automatically guilty I think its a little rich of you to criticise other members of the legal profession.
If it was simply doubt it would have taken them hours to reach a verdict, and it's highly likely it would have just been a majority direction. If it was doubt some jury members would have fallen on the other side of the fence, and the jury would have been there forever trying to decide.
Which was my point.
Despite the apparent evidence of her willingly performing a sex act on the boy, she was acquitted.
Not usually.
But if her defence was that she was indecently assaulted by violent threats, and her defence was strong enough to see her acquitted, then the boy should be put on trial for indecent assault with violent threats.
Most rape victims don't report the crime- of all the rape victims I know not one went to the police. It isn't unusual for a victim to not report it, especially as it seems pretty evident that her previous attackers received little or no punishment.
I think the fact that she had enough proof of violent coercion to be acquitted at trial is enough to mean that the boy should now be put on trial for indecent assault. However the teacher's wishes for closure should be respected, and I can't blame her, as even if she did pursue it the little fuck would probably only get a slap on the wrist, if that.
I happen to believe that the boy probably did hold a screwdriver to her head and force it- and the jury believed it enough to acquit too.
You can either be found guilty, be found not guilty, or the jury can fail to reach a verdict. If no verdict can be reached the CPS can either choose to request a retrial, or if they don't feel that a retrial is in the public interest, then the judge will order the jury to find the man not guilty. Obviously the jury didn't acquit you, but you are free to go and you are, in the law's eyes, innocent. If the retrial jury also can't reach a verdict then custom dictates that the CPS will not contest a third retrial.
Just because he was that oung, I don't think that should affect things.
Not that OT actually, but it's relevance is with an aspect of the current matter that hasn't been discussed (and I don't think there's much point in discussing): Why is it always assumed that minors having sex with adults are seduced?
We all know Kermit assumes the worst in any man accused of rape/sexual assault against a women.
She was acquitted, that means that her side of the story was believed enough to over-ride the video footage of her (seemingly) willingly giving head to a teenage pupil. And given how rape is so rarely believed by juries, especially when the one claiming rape is in a position of authority, I think that stands for something.
The only reason why this boy hasn't been found guilty is because the CPS chose to prosecute her instead of listening to her side of the story and prosecuting him.
why bring babies into this?
I do believe that some people are born evil.
If not you just put everyone into moral incontinence pants and nothing is ever their fault.
Environment doesn't explain how one person with the same background will rape or torture or murder, and another won't.
ali, its a simple enough argument. All children are innocent, but not all adults are- why is that?
I don't think all children are innocent though, and usually the children that are cunts aged two are cunts aged twenty-two.
Damien
regardless of if he was born evil or not...if the story is to be believed, he should be punshed regardless of his temperment when he came out of the womb
I remember a thread about Ronaldo. That's just off the top of my head.