Before the alleged intercourse, Andrew Riley, 36, had pleaded with the teenager, who was 17 at the time, not to scream, "yes Sir, yes!" in the throes of passion.

move 2 ile

It's his name: it's cursed.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2007/03/14/20070314-B4-02.html

Not as bad as this fine citizen, though: (FIVE years old)

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14132485/detail.html

When the affair ended the girl made a CD of the messages that allegedly passed between her and Riley and handed them to senior staff at Baines High School in Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancs.

YSI?

The post that didn't have to be made

Their relationship carried on until after her 18th birthday but fizzled out when she went to university.

it's an age-old story.

the advent of freshers draws ever nearer

maybe you could pick some of them up by making jokes about battered women

HUHT

who was 17 at the time
denies two charges of sexual activity with a child

?

17 = grey area

to be fair, i can just about imagine the horsier cambridge undergraduettes going for that.

xpost

it's not a grey area. he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

dang, hadn't thought of that. irresponsible me.

'betrayal of trust' and all that. whatever happened to the platonic ideal?

buttsex?

PEDERASTY, geddit right

how is this not a pic thread yet?

http://www.english.uga.edu/wblake/EverlastingGospel/plato4.bmp

unsurprise buttsechs

cocaine + sex = classic
-- kenan, Monday, 7 May 2007 20:18 (4 months ago) Bookmark Link

how did you find that?

like finding seashells on the beach

i imagine it's a popular opinion shared by many

cocaine + sex = classic
-- kenan, Monday, 7 May 2007 20:18 (4 months ago) Bookmark Link

I missed the "cocaine plus sex, classic or dud" thread.

how did you find that?

I remembered it being expressed on one of the coke threads, fuck knows why tho

because it will put me right off what I am doing

God I love the British

he was fine with "Daddy"

There's the teacher/student in loco parentis thing, which obviously makes it very wrong (but was probably a big turn on for the pair of them), but I can't see why he's being charged with the child sex offences (although the coke probably doesn't help) as she was above the age of consent at the time.

I'm not sure that it is a legally grey area (it's pretty obviously a moral one), as the law is fairly specific on the point.

I think it's illegal for teachers to have it off with pupils even if they're over 18 (as lots of upper 6th formers are) nowadays. But yeah making it a child sex offence seems a bit weird.

i don't think it's really a moral grey area at all!

if you sign up to be a teacher you are making a covenant not to fuck your pupils. it's completely irrelevant that she was 17 or 15 -- plenty of 15-year-olds are just as capable of making their own decisions and fucking their teachers. it's on the teacher not to.

Jeez. I've known teachers who have married ex-pupils.

in loco clitoris

have dawnson's creek and skins taught us nothing?

xxpost: I've been taught by one!

Jeez. I've known teachers who have married ex-pupils.

-- Stone Monkey, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:33 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeah me too and it remains creepy as fuck. though none as old as 36.

I think the point isn't whether he did something against the law or now, that seems to be pretty clear. I think the question is why he's charged with child sex offenses instead of something more relatable to the teacher/student relationship thing.

he shouldn't be charged with any criminal offence, but he should be banned from teaching.

Jeez. I've known teachers who have married ex-pupils.

Happens all the time in grad school, if a slightly different dynamic. Slightly.

the article is very (deliberately?) murky and doesn't mention who brought him to trial or exactly what for (supplying drugs??). why did the girl give the messages to the other staff? revenge for being dumped presumably?

yeah me too and it remains creepy as fuck. though none as old as 36.

how is it particularly 'creepy' if not just for the age gap?

I think the point isn't whether he did something against the law or now, that seems to be pretty clear. I think the question is why he's charged with *child* sex offenses instead of something more relatable to the teacher/student relationship thing.

-- jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

it's because 'in loco parentis' means 'in place of the parent'. i don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me.

it could be that the girl is, say, looked after or otherwise vulnerable, i dunno.

how is it particularly 'creepy' if not just for the age gap?

-- blueski, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:43 PM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

seriously? teachers scheming on their pupils?

Is it actually illegal for a teacher to have consensual sex with a pupil over the age of consent? Yes the teacher should get sacked for it. But a criminal prosecution, when it's two people over the age of consent having consensual sex?

I dated one of my T.A.'s right after the semester during which she taught me was through, she was eight months older than me.

Zelda OTM

so you think it would just as 'creepy' if he was only a few years older? (xpx3)

Obviously what he did is all kinds of sleazy and wrong and he should lose his opportunity to teach ever again, but I don't think its the same thing as someone having sex with an underage child.

Is it actually illegal for a teacher to have consensual sex with a pupil over the age of consent? Yes the teacher should get sacked for it. But a criminal prosecution, when it's two people over the age of consent having consensual sex?

-- Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:45 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:05 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Yes the teacher should get sacked for it.

should they even? in all/under any circumstances?

o you think it would just as 'creepy' if he was only a few years older? (xpx3)

-- blueski, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

in a way *even weirder* because a teacher in his/her twenties isn't having the mid-life crisis that this stuff usually comes out of.

xpost

yes

unless it's true love, obviously.

I know a guy who pursued his 40+ teacher for years till she agreed to marry him

i'm not quite convinced, tho you seem so certain. (xpx2)

in a way *even weirder* because a teacher in his/her twenties isn't having the mid-life crisis that this stuff usually comes out of.

ha, yeah right. otoh it wouldn't really be that weird for a guy to fall for a girl they see most days who is only a few years younger. being realistic here.

i'd want to judge these situations case by case. the girl may well have been exploited (inc. egged on to try cocaine) and that's v bad obv.

he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

Yes, I'm not sure why this should impinge on the rights of a person over the age of consent to have consensual sex with whomsoever he/she pleases. After all, do parents themselves have this right? And does this in loco parentis business cover even students who are over 18?

That came out a bit confused... I mean, surely anyone over the age of consent should be able to have consensual sex with who they want to, or else what's the point of having an age of consent?

Didn't Chris Woodhead marry one of his pupils?

this poor boy was raped too

... former Chief Inspector of Schools and right-wing twat (for non-UK residents) (xp)

I mean, surely anyone over the age of consent should be able to have consensual sex with who they want to, or else what's the point of having an age of consent?

not if it means they get their grades bumped up.

not if it means they get their grades bumped up.

That's a different issue though, isn't it?

THE ISSUE IS OVERLAPPING RELATIONSHIPS

ONE SEXUAL

THE OTHER A POWER DIFFERENTIAL WHERE THE ADULT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GRADING THE PUPIL

THIS IS BAD, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT

It's very obviously a matter of professional misconduct but hardly a criminal matter.

That came out a bit confused... I mean, surely anyone over the age of consent should be able to have consensual sex with who they want to, or else what's the point of having an age of consent?

-- Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:56 PM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

i suppose it comes in conflict with the loco parentis thing. 'age of consent' is a totally hypocritical concept that i doubt anyone believes in. some people -- most people -- are ready to give consent before they are 16, it's just a convenient number. for reasons i think obvious, teachers are in a position to abuse this, which is why they aren't allowed to.

we need some parents on this thread. 17 is really quite young, and we don't know how long he'd been working her.

hardly a criminal matter.

-- Stone Monkey, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:02 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

possession. also yes it is.

Yes, but...what if, say I was an aspiring young lawyer aged 21 and this older lawyer was coming onto me (aged, say 45) and they said I could have, say, a new BMW, if I slept with them? I mean power differential are everywhere are they not?

So he should be being done just for the drug offences and not the child sex offences.

it is if it's legislated to be so!!

i know it's a pain to have the total moral and sexual freedom of teachers impinged upon, but parents tend to complain and complain about this stuff.

xps yeah. "wait til u have kids" is kind of a right wing thing to say, but yknow wait til u have kids

It's very obviously a matter of professional misconduct but hardly a criminal matter.

Yeah. I guess that's my position. It shouldn't be illegal for people over the age of consent to have consensual sex. But it may be incompatible with one's professional duties.

know it's a pain to have the total moral and sexual freedom of teachers impinged upon

LOL

I'm a parent and 17 is quite young and the whole thing is VERY creepy BUT as someone has already said, what if he was 21 and she was 18? It all seems a bit arbitrary. What if she was a pupil at another school?

Anyone else reading this as Andrew Ridgeley?

There are lots of creepy and morally unsavoury things out there that are still perfectly legal and should remain so. The law isn't about personal morals.

What is up with the second line of this story being the second line?

There are lots of creepy and morally unsavoury things out there that are still perfectly legal and should remain so. The law isn't about personal morals.

-- Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:10 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

UH

It's the funniest part?

xp

i'd like to see an instance of a teacher getting it on with a younger student who's not from the school they teach in. just one.

we don't know anything about the girl

teacher/student is a unique dynamic irrespective of age gap altho i think this is a big factor here

teachers should know better than to mess with young (albeit legal) students, no doubt. the chances of it amounting to something are v slim.

reasonable grounds to sack the guy in this case yes - drugs thing, protect school rep.

he should be charged for drug thing and that's it.

actually fuck it. LEGALISE COKE.

how do you distinguish 'personal morals' (crazy made-up shit like um teachers shouldn't fuck pupils) from errrr... other kinds of justification for laws.

xpost

how do you distinguish 'personal morals' (crazy made-up shit like um teachers shouldn't fuck pupils) from errrr... other kinds of justification for laws.

What I meant is what we think of as "moral behaviour" is not a great basis for law. For example, cheating on someone is generally not very nice, but is not illegal either.

It would definitely be a feat of willpower to resist any kind of impropriety when confronted with a pile of coke, a bottle of vodka, a hotel room and a pretty seventeen year old who's gagging for it...

Not getting yourself into that situation in the first place would be advisable, I'd say.

Is it true that London is bursting at the seams with coke right now?

Not that I've noticed

Also, how far do you want to go with the "teachers shouldn't fuck pupils" line? Should apply at university? Should it apply at post grad level? For continuing education?

I don't know, I know one couple who met at university, he=lecturer, she=student, they've been together for the past 10 years and I'm having a hard time thinking there's something "wrong" about it. I don't know whether he recused himself from marking her papers or whatever.

It would definitely be a feat of willpower to resist any kind of impropriety when confronted with a pile of coke, a bottle of vodka, a hotel room and a pretty seventeen year old who's gagging for it...
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2006/03/09/billwyman3.jpg
...wasn't that his excuse?

insisting that the relationship between teachers and students be rigidly sex-free, in a legal sense, is so self evidently a good thing, i don't even know where to begin arguing for it.

Bill Wyman? 17? Try 13.

gff the point is do you actually want to criminalise teachers who end up flouting it? as opposed to just firing them for professional misconduct.

Which is definitely getting into completely different territory.

Jeez. I've known teachers who have married ex-pupils.

Me too, but the important difference was that they didn't start dating or having sex until AFTER the pupil had graduated. The mutual interest was there but they didn't act on it until the pupil was of legal age AND no longer a student at that school, so the teacher couldn't be accused of anything inappropriate. Really that seemed like the way to go.

Also, how far do you want to go with the "teachers shouldn't fuck pupils" line? Should apply at university? Should it apply at post grad level? For continuing education?

I knew this couple - he = head of dept. she = MA student - and they started - you know - and so he immediately booked himself a chat with the VC who kind of laughed in his face and told him not to be so silly. I'm not quite sure I'd go that far but there has to be some kind of admittance that adults may well want to have relationships with each other.

I work with a woman who, when she was 14, made several plays on her female teacher until the teacher eventually gave in TO SEX.

Bill Wyman? 17? Try 13.

Yeah, I know, how did he get away with that? Apart from saying "She looked 18 officer!"

insisting that the relationship between teachers and students be rigidly sex-free, in a legal sense, is so self evidently a good thing, i don't even know where to begin arguing for it.

I'm not sure it's so self-evident to me. Not "in a legal sense" in any case. And as Ned points out, it's not terribly realistic. It's a short step away from saying all professional relations should be sex-free, and how realistic is that?

It's a short step away from saying all professional relations should be sex-free

only nothing at all like that?

Ok, I just looked it up on the internet and it's OK, it turns out that the whole Bill Wyman thing was OK, because they were only dating NOT having sex. Phew.

And then his son married her mother.

Also, how far do you want to go with the "teachers shouldn't fuck pupils" line? Should apply at university? Should it apply at post grad level? For continuing education?

not in loco parentis so couldn't legislate. on a professional level it's pretty dumb. and obviously still skeezy with undergrads, but i guess that's why guys become academics.

actually fuck it. LEGALISE COKE.

-- blueski, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 15:13 (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

That's 2 things.

what?

but i guess that's why guys become academics.

Ouch.

those who can

There's nothing like "inappropriate sex" to make a "100 posts in 4 hours" type thread.

I don't think anyone's saying that he hasn't behaved totally improperly (abuse of trust and authority is just the start of it). And that at the very least he's a Very Bad Man who has no place in teaching. What we've been wondering is, given the age of the pupil concerned was over the legal age of consent, why he's being charged with child sex offences?

Now it could be that there's a seperate offence that specifically applies here that I'm unaware of - which wouldn't surprise me at all.

What we've been wondering is, given the age of the pupil concerned was over the legal age of consent, why he's being charged with child sex offences?

he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:05 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

and she was still claiming half price on buses.

he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

this is bullshit reason. him being a teacher doesn't/shouldn't make her a 'child'. the age of consent determines this separately.

he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:05 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 15:39 (Tuesday, 18 September 2007 15:39

So, as has been said before, does this mean that any teacher who has sex with a pupil at any age can be charged like this or does it only apply when the pupil is under eighteen? Because whilst I do agree that seventeen is very young, I've known nineteen and twenty year olds who probably shouldn't be allowed out on their own. Would it apply to a teacher taking advantage of them? Where do you draw the line?

at eighteen

When the affair ended the girl made a CD of the messages that allegedly passed between her and Riley and handed them to senior staff at Baines High School in Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancs.

YSI?

-- DJ Mencap, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 11:44 (4 hours ago)

hahaha. actual lolz.

this is bullshit reason. him being a teacher doesn't/shouldn't make her a 'child'.

errrr... it kind of DOES, is the idea.

use your imagination for a sec as to how a teacher, with all his pastoral responsibilities, might take advantage.

I said this earlier: it could be that the girl is, say, looked after or otherwise vulnerable, i dunno.

there are other possibilities i'm sure you can think of.

it overrides the age of consent.

up to what point?

point she leaves school, i guess.

ie 'in loco parentis' lasts until it stops.

that one guy otm, i dont know why ppl are being obtuse about this

you can be above the age of consent and still a child in the eyes of the law

and therefore require a guardian

with whom it would be illegal to have sex

There's nothing like "inappropriate sex"

it overrides the age of consent.

the age of consent is not something to be over-ridden imo, when it comes to actually prosecuting. you're basically equating a 17yo with an 11yo otherwise - which makes about as much sense as having sex with one of your students 19 years your junior.

there are other possibilities i'm sure you can think of.

criminalising on possibilties not proof then?

when do you become a legal adult in britain?

18

see if the girl ended up having his baby this country has it's head screwed on well enough to damn well make sure she can't buy booze to drink during the pregnancy.

Or buy cigarrettes tooo.

xxp but... doesn't that mean the law is equating 17 year olds with 11 year olds?

to be chapter-and-verse about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#England

or even better

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/20000044.htm

So it's a specific offence, then. If you'd just said that...

i kind of covered it with the shorthand comment:

he was in loco parentis as a teacher.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:05 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

u should've linked it earlier. i disagreed with that law anyway tho. put AOC back to 18 for all until we can alter the socio-cultural stigmatisation of teenage sex and reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies among them. it's all in my latest newsletter.

i didn't link coz i hadn't looked till then. it's my years at the bar, it's instinct.

while searching i saw that some wiseacres had suggested lowering age of consent to 14 *provided the fuckers [sexees?] are only two years apart in age difference*.

put AOC back to 18

You mean forward to?

So that law would still apply is he was a 36 year-old professor teaching a 38 year-old continuing education student?

"if"

no no, sorry, the thing i saw (some policy document) was proposing that 14-year-olds should be allowed to have sex with other 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, and 16-year-olds, but no-one older.

I think jvc's question is still, good, though, w/r/t the whole "in loco parentis" thing (which I'd never heard of before this thread): Does it still apply when the student is older than the teacher?

well, it ends at the age of 18, so no.

university is a whole different kettle of fish

well yes. tutors often are in a comparable "position of trust" to students and it would be interesting to see if breach of same had ever come to the courts. i'm sure it's been an administrative issue at universities.

I'm surprised no one has linked to, ahem, this yet:

Teacher 'had sex with pupil while driving bus'

OK, Henry, I was confused b/c you said:

it overrides the age of consent.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:50 AM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

up to what point?

-- Jarlrmai, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:55 AM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

point she leaves school, i guess.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:57 AM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

ie 'in loco parentis' lasts until it stops.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:57 AM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

school meaning pre-university there. teacher meaning schoolteacher too.

OK, got it.

So the law would be okay with this if she'd have been 18? Thats what I'm taking from this "in loco parentis" thing.

yes. if, on the day after she left school, this teacher who had spent many a chaste year admiring her bloom, gave her one, the law would be okay with that.

some pupils reach 18 before they leave school -- i think he'd still be in a position of trust and thus liable. but after that, bang away, not at all creepy.

Is no one excited about the bus?

Thats my confusion though.. so if she was 22 and still in school then the "in loco parentis" would apply and, thus, the sex would be illegal. What if she was two years older than him and still in school? Thats what I'm confused about.

Not as much as the teacher was (xp)

plenty of room up top

Move down the back please

something about oysters

The head of a school sixth form engaged in a sex act with one of his pupils while driving a school minibus, a court heard today.

Andrew Riley, a married father-of-two, spoke to a colleague on a mobile phone as the 17-year-old girl performed a further sex act upon him, Preston Crown Court was told.

Now that is truly disgraceful. This man should be ashamed of himself, lock him up and throw away the key - talking to someone on a mobile phone while driving.

Thats my confusion though.. so if she was 22 and still in school then the "in loco parentis" would apply and, thus, the sex would be illegal. What if she was two years older than him and still in school? Thats what I'm confused about.

-- jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:44 PM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

if you're 22 and still in school um... you too thick to have sex.

school means: place where you go from age 4 (or whatever) to age 18. after that it's not school. you don't get schoolteachers younger than their pupils.

Eyes a-boggle @ mouth-to-mouth sambuca game.

lot of 22 y/o's in high school round your way?

xp

How these things happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTDz5hvNqTQ

as usual Hollywood shows us the way

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/neverbeenkissed.jpg

heh heh heh

hey wtf is up with that link? it was supposed to be the bangbus thread :(

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Onthebuses.jpg/250px-Onthebuses.jpg

in a way it kinda is (xp)

whoa wtf haha

i remember there being a mythical thread that did that, nice find.

lolz

Hold on are you the Real Actual Geir Hongro???????????!!!!!!!!!!!

So we are making the distinction between (in the US) high school and college students then?

I'm really not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand. When I was in college it was not at all strange to find teachers very close in age to students.

when i did my stint in grad school they spent A LOT of time in TA orientation was 1 day, 1/2 of which was a workshop saying "PLZ PLZ DO NOT FUCK ANYONE WHILE HERE ok well we can't stop u but plz don't."

er bad edit there: orientation was one day, half was spent on this point!

I think there may be some confusion over the fact that Americans use the word "school" to refer to higher education as well. If someone tells me, for instance, that she was an English major, I might say, "Oh, where'd you go to school?" and expect an answer like "University of Michigan."

Thanks jaymc, thats what I was getting at. So when you say in loco parentis stops when s/he leaves "school", I was picturing university being included in that. Hence my confusion.

i think universities have taken pains in recent years to squash the culture of profs, grad students, and undergrads having relationships. even just beginning to frown on it publicly is a big change from the days of yore.

age of consent issues are moot at that point but the status and dependency issues definitely aren't.

I also think university culture has changed from the inside. I'm not saying professors + students never get involved, but I get the impression that in the 70s relationships between older male professors and young female grad students/undergrads were everywhere. that is just not how it is now, at least in my program; partially because of changes in demographics.