Dirty old men vs dirty old woman..?

the sentence should be determined by the facts... we can all probably agree that these are not known and will not be known until the court case.if they come out there.........

so no point in looking at the sentences......

Sussex and Seren, I agree with you both, his life is in tatters, so his own self-imposed sentence will be the worst part of this. As for whether or not he will re-offend, time will tell, my concern would be his comments on staying close to the girl. That suggests he sees it as unfinished business which is a bit scary, but if they ever celebrate 30 years married we'll all have been wrong

EKGO wrote (see)

 That suggests he sees it as unfinished business which is a bit scary, but if they ever celebrate 30 years married we'll all have been wrong

 

you could do well reading this article by Prof Pat Sikes who, apart from being an expert in pupil/teacher relationships, also fell in love with a teacher when she was 14 and eventually married him (still is married to him I believe).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/03/teacher-pupil-relationships

there's also a more recent one she is quoted in but is more from a pupil's view

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/28/relationship-with-teacher-not-my-fault

I'm sure there are one or two who do go on to marry, or have long term relationships but I'm guessing that's the minority. Also having read the articles, it's good to have the views of those who have been there etc, but the first article is preachy, the second more sordid, but I would have great difficulty in taking seriously the views of either, as they are both so intimately associated with the problem.

I still say where underage children are involved more caution is required than anything else.

EKGO wrote (see)

You didn't actually ask what anyone thought, you asked if we would agree that he is not a Paedophile, and you stated your own view that he should get 6 months.

Now you're asking what others think, personally I think he is a paedophile (Law and personal definitions) and I disagree with 6 months, he should get the going rate for someone who interferes with a Minor from a position of trust. The courts should also look at this from the point of view that he is not showing remorse and is stating a wish to remain near the girl in question which in my book places him in a category of unapologetic offender. 

EKGO - my question was to Stevie - as he thinks I am being lenient I thought it fair he says what punishment the guy should serve.   You think he should serve the same as the "going rate" for someone that interferes with kids - there is no going rate -there are different offences depending on the kids and what kind of interfering was going on !   Better just to say you think he should serve 6 months, 6 years or whatever - make your view known.   

Seren is right that we don't know the facts - but on the face of it this guy is not in the same category as a Jimmy Savile case - at least not to me.   As (I think it was) Sussex Runner said - a lot depends on whether this guy is judged a danger - if he isn't then I can't see the point in punishment for the sake of punishment.   If he is judged a danger (by specialists) then yes a longer punishment is called for.  

The paedo or not argument has been covered so no point in rehashing it.

Well while you ask, on the basis of the case R. v Brennan where a man abducted his own son willingly to live with his new family in Canada, with no other motive than wanting to be with his own son, he received 4 years because the mitigating circumstances showed a degree of planning and deceit.

This person did the same really, he took a willing partcipant abroad but his reasons were somehwat different. It still shows a similar degree of planning and deceit, therefore I'd say 6 years was not inappropriate