Leftist Teacher NUTs Want Right to Bed Their Pupils
The far leftist dominated union NASUWT says that teachers who have sex with their pupils should not be treated as sex offenders. NASUWT General Secretary Chris Keates said that it is wrong to criminalise teachers.
This news comes at the end of a week where a policeman of 14 years service was dismissed for wearing a BNP badge while off duty, and we found that even saying the words “Remember Dunkirk!” is liable to prosecution. Such is the moral inversion of the world in which we live.
“Having sex with pupils should be a criminal offence, because it is a breach of trust. When you are in charge of young people of any age you have a duty of care, and a moral responsibility to them,” said Mike Howson, National Youth Officer of the Young British National Party, in his reaction.
“We would suggest that teachers concentrate on teaching the young people in their care and stop trying to get off with them, whatever their age.”
The NASUWT has claimed that it is unfair to treat teachers who have affairs with students who are over 16 as sex offenders, insisting all they are guilty of is an “error of professional judgement.”
But Dean Dainty, who was 16 when he had a consensual relationship with his drama teacher Nicola Prentice, rubbished the claim, saying she abused her position. He said: “It took a piece of my life away really.”
In 2001 it became illegal for teachers to have any intimate or sexual affair with any pupil in their school under 18. If found guilty of doing so, the teacher would face instant dismissal, be made to sign the sex offenders’ register and possibly face jail.
Share this page:
Why is it no matter what these lefties do in life, they always, ALWAYS bring sex into it?
Whether it be unions, teaching, selfhelp groups, councils–and never normal sex either. Why are they always defending the sexual taboos in life???? What is wrong with these people? Do they hate socitey so much they have to corrupt everything with their peverse sexual ideas?
Is it no wonder young females have no self respect nowadays–and I draw your attention to the latest Pussy Cat Dolls’ “When I Grow Up” lyrics in the chorus:
[Chorus]
“When I grow up,
I wanna be famous,
I wanna be a star,
I wanna be in movies.
When I grow up,
I wanna see the world,
Drive nice cars,
I wanna have Groupies.”
Says it all really, and teachers have a responsibility to reject this kind of liberal attitude full stop!
Children in school are sent there by parents who expect them to be well cared for, protected, and their best interests served. If teachers choose to abuse their positions and groom school children for sex, they deserve nothing more than a place on the sex offenders’ register.
NASUWT seems to say on their website that an adult having sex with a teenager over the age of consent is not child abuse. Heads up NASUWT: it is. A teacher can have years to prime a vulnerable young mind, and “wait until midnight”. The grooming can be done by an influential and trusted adult in the years up to the age of consent. How many blokes reading this have had a teenage girl outrageously flirting with him? I certainly have, but the difference between my stance and NASUWT is I didn’t take advantage of it. Shame on you lefties – you’re abusing a position of trust. Again.
This NASUWT union who say it is wrong to criminalise ‘teachers’ for having sex with their pupils are like all Marxist-led organisations. They are in fact presenting merely the thin edge of a very large wedge which would profoundly change the relationship between staff and immature gullible children, and eventually such relationships in a school would become the norm. Though perhaps capable of the sexual mechanics of a relationship, such children are no match for the experience and guile of a mature adult predator.
Of course, denying these children such relationships may mean that they will be waiting for NASUWT and their neo-Marxist kind to lower the voting age to sixteen so that they can vote for a liberal-left party to provide this ‘right’ which, along with isolating children from their parents, is perhaps what this is all about in the first place.
Of course, sometimes in the world-at-large May-December relationships do happen, and this is where they belong, not in an educational establishment where gullible children of all ages are there to be educated, not taken advantage of. Our children are not the property of the State and these neo-Marxist brainwashers should leave them alone.
Why are they trying all of a sudden to decriminalise everything, or to try and take the steam off of certain actions? If they breach their trust, then they should be struck off and made to sign the sex offenders register. When they do what they do, they are actively wrecking the future of some poor child, no matter what age–being 16 does not automatically mean you’re an adult, that comes with time and experience and gained responsibility, something which these teachers who DO commit sexual offences on their pupils know nothing about. What’s next - Gary Glitter support groups? Bloody madness!
I’m now of the opinion that not only are our children being brainwashed by Marxists, but by perverts as well! If our children aren’t safe at school then perhaps it’s time for parents to stand up and start shouting!
Can you imagine the consequences of this? It will be like feeding time at the zoo! God help us all with children of school age - is there no end to the perversity of this bunch?
……
Apparently not. -Ed
These are the same union leaders who have encouraged the teaching of our children all about how to take drugs, and how to have sex, and wish to start this process from as young as 5. Unbelievable, the perverse gall of these people. All decent teachers out there should disassociate themselves from the NUT and have nothing to do with the corrupters of the young and impressionable.
At a time when there are so many other serious concerns, these weirdos in the NASUWT reveal their real inclination and motivations with this garbage.
Legally/technically the union is right when they say that teachers having sex with over-sixteens isn’t an offence and they should not be criminalised. However I find their stance smacks of pervertedness. The simple fact is that it is immoral, and teachers should be teaching good morals and good standards of decent normal human behaviour as well as specific academic subjects. For the union and teachers to hide behind law is cowardly. I find this stance by the union very close to accepting that paedophilia is OK (honest sir, I was sixteen this morning!). This country is still recognised as a civilised, fair, decent, honest country. Teachers are in a high-profile job when it comes to maintaining our future generations’ qualities as a nation, second only to parents. They need to be whiter-than-white, and need to be seen to be whiter-than-white. Sixteen year-olds and thereabouts are naturally attracted to people of roughly their own age groups, so clearly teachers ‘getting off’ with students is not down to natural attraction but quite simply down to grooming. Still if grooming is good enough for Muslims, it must be good enough for our teachers. Don’t want to appear to be racist, do we?!
These characters advocating this need to go away and take a serious look at themselves . They are in a position of trust and with the amount of time they spend with their pupils , they probably do not have to groom them as young people in their formative years are very impressionable , react to kindness and have a romantic view of love , to say nothing of the old chestnut “hormones all over the place ” .There should be a code of standards and ethics imposed in each and everyone’s contact or terms of employment and any breach of this should be met with severity . Children and their parents are under enough pressure these days without this becoming an accepable norm .
A teacher having a sexual relationship with a pupil is certainly a breach of trust and gross professional misconduct. It is also deeply unsavoury and illegal.
NASUWT should place as much emphasis on improving the educational standards of young, impressionable children as it does on defending the so-called rights of adults who exploit them for sexual gratification.
But its ok to sack teachers that are assotiated with the BNP ? These mugs are having a laugh….The sooner this Nation IS BNP,the better…Then these PERVERTS can be judged by the PEOPLE ! March on BNP
Surly this amounts to breach of some professional code of conduct, if not it should do.
BREACH OF TRUST!!
Isn’t it funny how many paedophiles are in the ‘middle-class’ professions, yes, and teaching is one of them?
If a teacher cannot practice self-control, then they need to be kept away from impressionable young people given into their care.
I checked, and found the NASUWT site now has an added bit - it says, describing an anomaly as ‘the right to bed pupils’ is mistaken, and it says ‘one report’ has done this. Amusingly, it doesn’t mention the BNP at all, or of course this site. It claims such a ‘relationship’ is ‘grossly unprofessional’ and the consequence is ‘nearly always dismissal … and being barred from teaching.’ Needless to say - as with all offical or quango-style reporting - no evidence is produced in support!
Readers might be interested in checking out university union groups. There were, and I presume still are, funded from union money - they put in an anual claim and get money shelled out for them. I Googled for University Union Groups; Strathclyde came out first, for, probably, no particular reason; there’s a ‘Race Relations’ group described vaguely, including stuff on ‘Islamophobia’ (racist?) and mentioning thugs like ‘Unite Against Fascism’. Needless to say there is no white group - nor even Scottish that I could find.
By the way the NASUWT site on close reading quotes from the ‘General Secretary’ Keates, on the anomaly (basically, if a teacher has sex with a pupil from another school, he (or she?) doesn’t have to sign the sex offenders register. If it’s the school he/she teaches in, he/she does have to sign it). I’s not clear, probably intentionally, whether Keates thinks both cases should sign, despite the fact that professional conduct would, he says, requite this. So I think the BNP headline is accurate enough.
I would do serious harm to anyone, let alone a teacher, who messed with my grand-daughters.
White Lion on October 6th, 2008 2:57 pm has a very valid point.
Lady Sabrina on October 6th, 2008 2:43 pm: What’s needed is the BNP in government in order to stop the sexualising of our kids at such a tender age.
Jao7 at 2:16 mentioned grooming in his post. Our kids don’t need “in depth” sex education - to me, this is a prep for sexual predators and grooming. I’m 55 now. I didn’t know what ‘pregnant’ meant till I was 14, then my mother belted me for saying the word!
yagooks at 11:53, the short answer to your last question is a resounding YES.
This is what you can expect from this leftist union.Like all those that are strong left wing there is something wrong in thier make up,perhaps it is in thier DNA
As a Secondary School teacher, I find the debate about whether or not it is ok to have sex with students over 16 totally ridiculous. To be in a profession where the care of young people is at the very core of what we should be doing, it is unthinkable that anyone can think it right to abuse the trust handed to us by the parents or the student. Teachers are in a privileged position of trust and they must not abuse this.
Hang on everyone.
I know of a specific example when a number of us “boys” when were 13! Severely lusting after the very nubile lady PE teacher and this continued through to when we left school! And she flirted with us like crazy; it’s why we attended school.
So, I think teachers should face disciplinary action and in certain circumstances criminal charges, but life isn’t that clear cut and to simply say they are effectively paedophiles is somewhat overstretching the mark.
But on the other hand, if it was clearly spelled out to teachers that they would be sacked then 99.9% of this wouldn’t happen in the first place.
-
Flirting is NOT against the law, Tommy. It has happened since time immemorial - Also, a 13 year old lad WILL kid himself that “Miss Fancies Me”, if only to impress his pubescent mates - Ed
Unmentioned so far is that the chatterati have started whispering about reducing the age of consent to 14 …
The chatterati whispering amongst themselves is how they first started on the homosexual age of consent being reduced to 16.
It is disturbing that this subject should even be mentioned in the first place, have these people nothing better to do with their time, i.e. improving education for children as opposed to contemplating sex with them?
This is a strange time we are living in, all traditional values are being inverted and twisted - much like the minds which pronounce such rubbish as this.
@ GratefulArthur
Good to hear such sense from someone directly involved in this subject.
I always wondered why the liberal nazis were so obsessed with teaching our kids, all about every peverse sexual act they could think of. and introducing them at an ever younger age.
Now it’s all clear - they were grooming them for abuse, for when they reach puberty.
I wonder if Gary Glitter has thought of a job in teaching.
The contradictions of the loony liberal mindset would be amusing if it weren’t so scary.
Consider how on the one had, the chattering middle-classes bemoan the loss of childhood innocence and are seemingly mystified to explain why the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western europe, and then you have idiots like NASUWT General Secretary Chris Keates putting into public debate how it is acceptable for teachers to have sex with children!
Not exactly rocket science to see why children are losing their innocence when you have people like this in prominent positions.
How long before they are campigning for gay teachers to have sex legally with ‘gay’ pupils?
God help us.
…………..
They already are - this demand for change from the Union does not differentiate. -Ed
When I read these exhortations by people that should really know better, it makes me angry. it makes the collective BNP angry. Does it make the floating voter angry. Will it make the Apethetic get off his/her bum and get angry. From this post I get the impression that secondry school must be hives of imorality. If one teacher thinks that the premise that because technically a sixteen year old is not a minor, they are then targetable. Then that teacher should be sacked. There can be no justification. We send our precious offspring to school not to be the target of letchers and pederasts.
They’re talking nonce sense