Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Can a 16 year old girl "groom" a 44 year old teacher?

2456789

Comments

  • #32
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    +1000 Zen65, excellent post


  • #33
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,946 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    I think your exaggeration shows your own bias here and overshadows any point you might have.

    Not really. The judge is implying that she groomed him. That somehow the power was in her hands.

    Look, I know all about 16 year old girls who think they are so sophisticated and mature when they are anything but. I was one, I went to school with them. I know how they would try out their wiles, and flirting and innuendo on our male teachers. But those teachers shut down the messing as soon as it started, or if it persisted, the girl in question was brought before the head teacher.

    The first that this came to light was when the parents discovered texts from him on the teenagers phone. So we can assume that unlike a normal teacher who would have gone straight to the head of the school to voice concerns over the teen 'grooming' him, or 'stalking' him, perhaps discussing measures where his contact with her was minimised or where her parents were informed, he has sex with her instead.

    She basically behaved as a lot of teens with silly crushes do- very likely most male teachers teaching female teens have been the subject of such a crush and hero worship, but he was the one who should have turned on his heel and walked away the minute he realised that it was crossing the line.


  • #34
    Ethel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 106 ✭✭Ethel


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Of course the teacher wrong to pursue the affair but let's not delude ourselves that all 16 years are innocent little children who know nothing about life. There is nothing to say a teenager cannot and would not thrown themselves at an older person.

    Being 16 doesn't preclude from being manipulative and making mistakes. It doesn't mean you don't know what you want and it certainly doesn't mean that you won't willingly and in full knowledge of what you're doing, go for what you want and do whatever you can to get.

    Pretending teenagers are all sweetness and innocence is naive and foolish.

    This is my view.

    He was in the wrong and abused his position. She had her part to play in all this too, and I'm not buying the young innocent flirtations crap. She pursued him and wanted this with him. Her Mother is off her trolley if she thinks her daughter is all sweetness and light, only to be corrupted by the bad man..

    Judgement was fair in my view. He's not going to make the same mistake again. He's going to be picking up the pieces after such a stupid dalliance with that girl.


  • #35
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,701 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's not an exaggeration, it's a pretty accurate summation of the judges opinion.

    No it wasn't accurate, because the judge did not try to portray the girl as some sort of sophisticated femme fatale, and trying to claim that she did is taking the barest grasp of the actual facts and then using that to run off on a rant.

    Pointing out the fact that the girl was the one who instigated the situation does not imply that the teacher was free from blame, and statements like:
    it doesn't matter if she had danced naked in front of him, even thrown herself upon him, the fact is that the girl was not in a position of authority over him and had no responsibility towards him, no duty of care towards him, so she is not responsible for his actions. He is responsible for his own actions.
    have missed that point.


  • #36
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Ethel wrote: »
    He's going to be picking up the pieces after such a stupid dalliance with that girl.

    Wow Ethel, you sound almost as old as me! I rarely hear that word in use today; great to see it used properly !

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Paz-CCFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭Paz-CCFC


    Zen65 wrote: »
    • The judge further commented that the 16-year-old had in fact been the one to pursue the teacher. Stating this as a fact is perfectly reasonable. She did not attach blame against the girl for her actions because let's face it, in the eyes of the law, that 16-year-old is not deemed capable of making a sexual selection in a consensual manner. Rightly so.

    Absolutely fantastic post Zen, I completely agree with the essence of what you're saying.

    Can I just point out, though, that this case was in the UK, where the general age of consent is 16. Therefore, a 16 year old is ordinarily deemed capable of consensual sexual activity. However, in the context of an abuse of trust, there is another, separate offence, with a higher tier at 18 years of age. It is seen as a less immoral crime as sex with someone under the general age of consent when not in a position of authority, as it attracts a lower maximum sentence.

    In Ireland, whilst the general age of consent is higher, I don't think that there's a separate, higher tier for abuse of trust (though, there is a higher maximum sentence if the person is underage; and I believe that the Law Reform Commission have been looking at this general area of trust, so they might be considering introducing it). It's 17 across the board. So, as far as I can see, if a person in a position of trust had sex with a 17 year old, the former would be guilty of an offence in the UK, but not in Ireland.


  • #38
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,946 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    No it wasn't accurate, because the judge did not try to portray the girl as some sort of sophisticated femme fatale, and trying to claim that she did is taking the barest grasp of the actual facts and then using that to run off on a rant.

    Pointing out the fact that the girl was the one who instigated the situation does not imply that the teacher was free from blame, and statements like: have missed that point.

    These were taken from the article as quotes:
    Judge Joanna Greenberg QC said the victim had become “obsessed” with Kerner. She told him: “Her friends described her, accurately in my view, as stalking you … There is no evidence you encouraged her in any way. There is no evidence you groomed her. If anything it was she who groomed you. You gave way to temptation at a time when you were emotionally vulnerable because of problems with your wife’s pregnancy.
    “She was intelligent and used that intelligence to manipulate people emotionally. She was vulnerable and needy and had a troubled home life.”

    So if she was maybe a bit thicker, the judge might have been a bit more sympathetic.
    he had told the teenager their relationship was “written in the stars”. He had shown her a condom he had brought into school and told her he would use it when she became too “irresistible”

    This isn't evidence of encouraging her??


  • #39
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    I think it is possible for the teacher to be guilty and for the girl not to be a victim, simultaneously.


  • #40
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,701 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Neyite wrote: »
    This isn't evidence of encouraging her??

    Why can't you see that noting the girls actions does not mean that the teacher didn't have his own case to answer?

    Correctly noting that the girl actively encouraged the relationship does not absolve the teacher of his actions, they are two different issues. And once again using hyperbole and loaded statements like
    So if she was maybe a bit thicker, the judge might have been a bit more sympathetic.
    does not at all help your point.


  • #41
    Ethel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 106 ✭✭Ethel


    Neyite wrote: »
    This isn't evidence of encouraging her??

    If I remember correctly she keyed in the code to get into the store room. This was after been shown the condom. The innocent little girl card is sheer codswallop. She knew what she was going in there for.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,946 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Why can't you see that noting that the girls actions does not mean that the teacher didn't have his own case to answer?

    Correctly noting that the girl actively encouraged the relationship does not absolve the teacher of his actions, they are two different issues. And once again using hyperbole and loaded statements like does not at all help your point.

    Of course the teen actively encouraged the relationship - she was a besotted 16 year old girl. But its not 'grooming'.


  • #43
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    It is very very common for girls to get crushes on teachers. Goes with the territory.
    The vast majority of teachers don't encourage it and certainly don't fnck them.
    The man is a scumbag and the judge is typically divorced from reality.


  • #44
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,946 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Ethel wrote: »
    If I remember correctly she keyed in the code to get into the store room. This was after been shown the condom. The innocent little girl card is sheer codswallop. She knew what she was going in there for.

    Maybe she knew. But in the eyes of the law, because of her age, and because she was a student, and he a teacher, her 'willingness' is moot. She is not deemed capable of consent in that scenario.


  • #45
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,701 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Neyite wrote: »
    Maybe she knew. But in the eyes of the law, because of her age, and because she was a student, and he a teacher, her 'willingness' is moot. She is not deemed capable of consent in that scenario.

    Hence the conviction for the teacher.


  • #46
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,946 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Hence the conviction for the teacher.

    And he could have been convicted and fairly sentenced without the comments by the judge. I just think they were unnecessary and inflammatory.

    It's up there (for me) with comments like 'what did she expect, wearing that short skirt' or 'well, if she got that drunk, she deserves to get taken advantage of' and I'm not comfortable with that. To my mind it helps excuse an offenders behaviour, and does a disservice to the rest of the male population who can manage to control themselves in situations where its inappropriate or wrong to pursue a sexual encounter.


  • #47
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Hot 16-year old girl - "Sir, I'll do anything to pass next weeks exam."
    Male 40 year odl teacher - "Anything...?"
    "Yeah" - blows in his ear kisses his neck.
    "You're serious - anything?"
    She nods seductively.
    He leans in, makes eye contact... smiles... and whispers in her ear...

    "Study."

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #48
    Paz-CCFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭Paz-CCFC


    Neyite wrote: »
    Maybe she knew. But in the eyes of the law, because of her age, and because she was a student, and he a teacher, her 'willingness' is moot. She is not deemed capable of consent in that scenario.

    It wasn't moot. If a victim was not at all willing and an accused has sex with her, the accused would be guilty of the much more serious crime of rape. The maximum sentence for that would be life, as opposed to 5 years in this case. The actions/inactions of the victim are also highly relevant in relation to mitigation/aggravation in the sentencing process. If the judge does not sufficiently examine all areas of the defendant's case, then it could constitute a breach of one's right to a fair trial and lead to the entire case collapsing, leading to a guilty defendant being acquitted.


  • #49
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    No it wasn't accurate, because the judge did not try to portray the girl as some sort of sophisticated femme fatale, and trying to claim that she did is taking the barest grasp of the actual facts and then using that to run off on a rant.

    Pointing out the fact that the girl was the one who instigated the situation does not imply that the teacher was free from blame, and statements like: have missed that point.


    Pointing out "Well she started it!", sounds, dare I say it, a little childish, don't you think?

    What does it matter that she started it? He should have finished it! But he allowed her to continue, when he knew that he was married was the first thing, second that he was her teacher, thirdly that he'd taught enough students over the years and had enough training and experience with teenagers to understand that teenagers by their very nature think and behave immaturely. They will do things and they will push boundaries and bloody hell do they test patience! But does that excuse an adult from taking advantage of their immaturity to fulfill their own desires?

    No, no it doesn't.


  • #50
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    The more "sophisticated" we get the dumber-than-ditchwater we are. Is it too much to expect a 44-year-old man working as a schoolteacher to stay out of the knickers of his 16-year-old pupils?


  • #51
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Lolita


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    jimgoose wrote: »
    The more "sophisticated" we get the dumber-than-ditchwater we are. Is it too much to expect a 44-year-old man working as a schoolteacher to stay out of the knickers of his 16-year-old pupils?

    No, its not.

    That's why the guy was found guilty, convicted and sentenced for his crime.


  • #53
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    No, its not...

    Good.


  • #54
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Pointing out "Well she started it!", sounds, dare I say it, a little childish, don't you think?

    What does it matter that she started it? He should have finished it! But he allowed her to continue, when he knew that he was married was the first thing, second that he was her teacher, thirdly that he'd taught enough students over the years and had enough training and experience with teenagers to understand that teenagers by their very nature think and behave immaturely. They will do things and they will push boundaries and bloody hell do they test patience! But does that excuse an adult from taking advantage of their immaturity to fulfill their own desires?

    No, no it doesn't.

    Who's excusing him? All anyone has said is that portraying the girl involved as a sweet innocent child corrupted by a big bad sex offender is off the mark.

    Of course he was wrong but that does not and should not absolve the girl of her actions.

    It matters very much who started and how the girl conducted herself because it makes the difference between the teacher being a predator and being a lonely weak man who made a seriously stupid mistake.

    He's not a monster, she's not an innocent and we need to stop trying to make them out to be.


  • #55
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    ...He's not a monster, she's not an innocent and we need to stop trying to make them out to be.

    He's by no means a monster. He's a very silly man who, being a professional teacher nearly three times her age should know better than to go canoodling with a highly-intelligent but no less wet-behind-the-ears sixteen-year old who has no idea who she is yet, never mind what she wants.


  • #56
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    jimgoose wrote: »
    He's by no means a monster. He's a very silly man who, being a professional teacher nearly three times her age should know better than to go canoodling with a highly-intelligent but no less wet-behind-the-ears sixteen-year old who has no idea who she is yet, never mind what she wants.

    But she did know what she wanted by all accounts, and she went after with everything she had.

    Of course he's foolish and weak but lets not pretend the girl is an innocent victim here. She put herself in his way, 16 or not, and he made a stupid decision that he'll have to live with for the rest of his life.


  • #57
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    But she did know what she wanted by all accounts, and she went after with everything she had...

    Sixteen-year-olds have no idea what they want.


  • #58
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,701 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    jimgoose wrote: »
    He's by no means a monster. He's a very silly man who, being a professional teacher nearly three times her age should know better than to go canoodling with a highly-intelligent but no less wet-behind-the-ears sixteen-year old who has no idea who she is yet, never mind what she wants.

    Maybe if you keep repeating it eventually you will find somebody who disagrees with you.


  • #59
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Sixteen-year-olds have no idea what they want.

    That's your opinion but no more. Constant refrain will make it any less naive and deluded than it is.


  • #60
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,710 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    jimgoose wrote: »
    He's by no means a monster. He's a very silly man who, being a professional teacher nearly three times her age should know better than to go canoodling with a highly-intelligent but no less wet-behind-the-ears sixteen-year old who has no idea who she is yet, never mind what she wants.

    There can be no doubt that as a mature adult he did know better, a 16 year old should know better.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Maybe if you keep repeating it eventually you will find somebody who disagrees with you.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    That's your opinion but no more. Constant refrain will make it any less naive and deluded than it is.

    Your points being what? That this child is a wicked femme-fatale who lures 40-something-year old men to their doom, siren-like, with feminine guile and sheer subtle manipulation? "Naive and deluded"?? Would you ever... Cheeses!! :pac::pac::pac:


Advertisement
Advertisement