Breaking News

Well i wasnt aware, never pay much attention to be honest as i dont drink....I was wrong on that one, never got a problem saying so.

You didnt comment about the rest of my post though. Interested to hear your next line of defence for our famous teacher :)
 
tiler65 said:
You are so wrong. There is leeway when testing positive for a DUI offense.
Click to expand...

I always thought there was a blood limit set in ml, translating to a real world figure of a unit or 2 (not reliable due to everyone being different etc).
 
SnappyHappy said:
Didnt say anything about paedos. The law states 16 and thats it. Its there to keep a boundary/maintain a safe standard like any other age limit for anything - tattoos, booze, driving....over that age, make your decisions....age gap is different, so dont want to bring that to the debate as everyone has different views on whats morrally acceptable, but age limit is a hard limit, not a moral limit.
Click to expand...

You seem to know that they've acted sexually..
 
SnappyHappy said:
Well i wasnt aware, never pay much attention to be honest as i dont drink....I was wrong on that one, never got a problem saying so.

You didnt comment about the rest of my post though. Interested to hear your next line of defence for our famous teacher :)
Click to expand...

I am not defending him, I am questioning the law. I don't know enough about the case to defend or prosecute him. But you do.
 
I've got no idea, just seems to be the way the thread has went....will all come out though, whatever has gone on.
Switched more to whats the law and what isnt.
 
SnappyHappy said:
I've got no idea, just seems to be the way the thread has went....will all come out though, whatever has gone on.
Switched more to whats the law and what isnt.
Click to expand...

But you are insinuating he is guilty of underage sex. This information has not been released to the media. So for the time being he hasn't broken any laws regarding that.

Abduction is thing the police are using at the mo.
 
SnappyHappy said:
Dont know why P**** was mentioned (was it?) - still, he's heading to The Register no doubt and rightly so. She's 15, underage - thats the law, no debate. No matter what he's teaching/how much lipstick she's wearing, hard facts in this case.
Click to expand...

He has been arrested on suspicion of child abduction. Not as far as I know a crime that on conviction leads to being entered on the sex offenders register. As Bernie said, many of the people convicted are one of the parents of the abducted child trying to take them out of the country following a divorce - no sexual element at all.

If both parties say nothing, there will be no charge of what used to be called USI. How can there be, if the younger party will not give evidence or denies any sexual contact took place and the older one says nothing, there is no crime to prosecute.

So, he will lose his job and might go to prison for child abduction. When he gets out she's likely to be 16 and there will be no position of trust relationship so if they both still want to they can go at it like rabbits, two years earlier than if the whole episode hadn't taken place.
 
SnappyHappy

There is leeway is both driving while having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit (Driving UI isn't the offence you're talking about), and what was called, and may still be USI, unlawful sexual intercourse.

In the first, if you blow above the prescribed limit, but blow, from memory 45, you don't get charged.

In USI, if you are under 24, and either believe that the girl was above 16, and is in fact between 14 and 16, or it would be reasonable for someone to assume she was over 16, so long as there has been no previous allegation, again, you wont be charged.

So in both there's leeway, but subject to conditions. In any good law, there must be some room for budge and or error.

As for an age gap, I don't see any issue once some is above 16, my last girlfriend was 19 years younger than me. I agree, shes under 16, and he's in a position of responsibility so even a non sexual relationship isn't very wise, but also not illegal as far as I can see.

However, as has been said, there's no evidence at the moment of USI, there may never be any evidence of it, whether it happened or not.

Even if it did, and this bit is outside my knowledge so I am quoting what I have read, the Euro arrest warrant specifies child abduction only. Apparently that means it is difficult to then charge with any other offence. Now as I said, I've never heard of that before, and it may be just jurno's being 'confused', but if true, then thats that.
 
Well, I'm just guessing now, but my guess is that the arrest warrant is for child abduction because it's pretty well an absolute offence, the fact that they were together without the consent of her legal guardians is evidence enough for the arrest.

If unlawful sexual intercourse took place then this will have to be proved, which will be much more difficult and perhaps impossible unless at least one of them admits to it and unless she agrees to a medical examination. People have rights, and I believe that she has the right to refuse a medical.
 
Garry Edwards said:
People have rights, and I believe that she has the right to refuse a medical.
Click to expand...

I could be talking crap here but I'm not sure what a medical at this point in time would prove?

Whether she's "technically" a virgin or not but we don't know if she's had intercourse prior to this little excursion or not or whether she's had any previous sexual partners.

I would imagine that any DNA evidence would be long gone too?
 
It's not so much she has a right to refuse, more Police have no right to demand a medical. They can ask, she says no, end of story.
I guess the parents could allow police to have her unwashed underwear, and they could take his and have both examined, which could prove the point. Then again, maybe they were doing their washing somewhere, who knows.

Garry
There is evidence, obviously of child abduction, and none of USI. An assumption isn't evidence, and as I said, it's perfectly possible that they were not having sex. Either way, you need evidence to support an application for a warrant, and there is sfa for USI, which is the reason it doesn't feature on the warrant.
 
Bernie174 said:
It's not so much she has a right to refuse, more Police have no right to demand a medical. They can ask, she says no, end of story.
I guess the parents could allow police to have her unwashed underwear, and they could take his and have both examined, which could prove the point. Then again, maybe they were doing their washing somewhere, who knows.

Garry
There is evidence, obviously of child abduction, and none of USI. An assumption isn't evidence, and as I said, it's perfectly possible that they were not having sex. Either way, you need evidence to support an application for a warrant, and there is sfa for USI, which is the reason it doesn't feature on the warrant.
Click to expand...

If the police ask and she says no, that's a refusal, if the police can't impose it, they're respecting her right to refuse.
 
Bernie174 said:
Even if it did, and this bit is outside my knowledge so I am quoting what I have read, the Euro arrest warrant specifies child abduction only. Apparently that means it is difficult to then charge with any other offence. Now as I said, I've never heard of that before, and it may be just jurno's being 'confused', but if true, then thats that.
Click to expand...


The abduction is the only thing on the warrant because it's the only thing that Sussex Police have evidence of. Even if they did have evidence of 'USI' committed whilst in France it wouldn't be accepted as grounds for extradition because they are both of legal age there.

Shock, horror, by the way; the journalist was absolutely correct. You can only add to, or amend, the charges if the permission of the extraditing legislature is both sought and given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top