Scrap sex laws that discriminate against teachers.

Relatively recent law changes now mean that a teacher can be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old. Yet the age of consent is 16! Why should there be special rules for the teaching profession? Doctors and nurses aren't barred from having relationships with people who have been patients in their hospital. Police officers aren't banned from having sex with people who live on their beat. Tax inspectors aren't banned from french-kissing taxpayers!

Now, if a teacher abused their position, that would be a different matter. If they said to a sixth-former, "I'll fail you unless you give me a blow job," then that would be a clear abuse of their position – but prosecutors should have to show that some abuse of authority has actually taken place. The state should not presume that a relationship is abusive just because one partner is a student and the other is a teacher!

A person could marry a 16 year-old and then become a teacher at their school. They could already have a child together. Surely we can't prosecute them or ban them from being at the same school! And if we don't prosecute married couples, why should we discriminate against other couples who choose not to marry?

Why is this idea important?

Relatively recent law changes now mean that a teacher can be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old. Yet the age of consent is 16! Why should there be special rules for the teaching profession? Doctors and nurses aren't barred from having relationships with people who have been patients in their hospital. Police officers aren't banned from having sex with people who live on their beat. Tax inspectors aren't banned from french-kissing taxpayers!

Now, if a teacher abused their position, that would be a different matter. If they said to a sixth-former, "I'll fail you unless you give me a blow job," then that would be a clear abuse of their position – but prosecutors should have to show that some abuse of authority has actually taken place. The state should not presume that a relationship is abusive just because one partner is a student and the other is a teacher!

A person could marry a 16 year-old and then become a teacher at their school. They could already have a child together. Surely we can't prosecute them or ban them from being at the same school! And if we don't prosecute married couples, why should we discriminate against other couples who choose not to marry?

Overturn unfair criteria of Criminal Injuries Board

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Why is this idea important?

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Grooming law – inadequate

According to the local police, it is not a crime if a 23-year-old man asks a 12-year- old child if she wants to have sex, via the internet.

They say it is only a crime if the adult sets up a meeting for the 'purposes of sex' . And says so.

If a male adult stopped a child in the street and asked her if she wanted to have sex with him, then he could presumably be arrested.

So why is internet communication any different? Other than the problem of proving who made the suggestion.

The law should be changed to protect the child's rights. If the balance of probability is that the adult made a sexual suggestion, then it should be appropriate for the police to act.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

According to the local police, it is not a crime if a 23-year-old man asks a 12-year- old child if she wants to have sex, via the internet.

They say it is only a crime if the adult sets up a meeting for the 'purposes of sex' . And says so.

If a male adult stopped a child in the street and asked her if she wanted to have sex with him, then he could presumably be arrested.

So why is internet communication any different? Other than the problem of proving who made the suggestion.

The law should be changed to protect the child's rights. If the balance of probability is that the adult made a sexual suggestion, then it should be appropriate for the police to act.

 

 

 

Modifying laws dealing with “indecent images”

In the sexual offences act, "indecent images of children" needs replacing with something more representative of disruption to society. This is likely to be more complex than current laws. The basic problem is that the scope for interpretation of "indecent" is routinely being abused, leading to a form of "legal discrimination". And the public are none the wiser. This is limiting the protection of children by the significant diversion of resources towards cases of dubious value, actively and intentionally contributing to a public misunderstanding of paedophilia as a group, and ruining the lives of many who should be considered moraly innocent. Of course, there are many, many effects in reality, which I'm not going to go into here, but the more you look into it, the more you realise how badly we're… well, getting it wrong.

I'm not talking about people who have obviously accrued large collections of serious child pornography. If you thought I meant that we should be legalising that, with respect, you probably have a lot to learn. All I'm saying is that justice should be proportional to the disruption caused to individuals and society by an offence. Many indecent image convictions are based on actions for which such disruption is practically 0. At the moment the situation is far from adequate, with even "making" (i.e. causing to be displayed on a computer screen) a single "level 1" image portrayed as a "serious" offence, and branding somebody a sexual offender.

Why is this idea important?

In the sexual offences act, "indecent images of children" needs replacing with something more representative of disruption to society. This is likely to be more complex than current laws. The basic problem is that the scope for interpretation of "indecent" is routinely being abused, leading to a form of "legal discrimination". And the public are none the wiser. This is limiting the protection of children by the significant diversion of resources towards cases of dubious value, actively and intentionally contributing to a public misunderstanding of paedophilia as a group, and ruining the lives of many who should be considered moraly innocent. Of course, there are many, many effects in reality, which I'm not going to go into here, but the more you look into it, the more you realise how badly we're… well, getting it wrong.

I'm not talking about people who have obviously accrued large collections of serious child pornography. If you thought I meant that we should be legalising that, with respect, you probably have a lot to learn. All I'm saying is that justice should be proportional to the disruption caused to individuals and society by an offence. Many indecent image convictions are based on actions for which such disruption is practically 0. At the moment the situation is far from adequate, with even "making" (i.e. causing to be displayed on a computer screen) a single "level 1" image portrayed as a "serious" offence, and branding somebody a sexual offender.