[news] Groomed in lesson while on Ipad

[Garacesh]

I think it said he was 20 in the article linked to?

It did. I noticed that and edited my post before you even responded. Beat ya to it! ;D

 

GUYS! This is what the DAILY FAIL wants us to do!!!

 

#HookLineSinker

Nah, the Daily Mail wants us to rabble at schools and governments to do more about nasty internet men. If we hate each other here, it makes no odds to them

[localzuk]

I respectfully disagree. The fact that she lied is proof that she was in full knowledge of what she was doing, which is why she lied in the first place. If she was 'immature and not mindful' she would have asked "Grandma, why does this site need to know my age?" The fact that she continued to solicit this person even after knowing what was going on was her choice. Yes, the school could have done more. Yes, her parents/grandparents certainly could have done more. But she is certainly to shoulder part of the blame, as is the bloke on the other end of the webcam.

 

A child can lie to get something but not understand the consequences of their actions. It is NOT the child's fault if those consequences happen.

 

You lied as a child to get alcohol. So did I. Most of us have done it at some point, I reckon. Alcohol, cigarettes, any kind of restricted product. But just because you were underage doesn't absolve you of all blame. The shop should have carded you, but you should have decided to obey the law.

 

The law bans the sale of alcohol to underage people. It does not ban the consumption of alcohol by minors. My actions were not illegal. Just as the girl's actions here were not illegal. The actions of the other party were illegal!

 

Let us also be mindful that we know nothing of the man on the other end. If it's a 17 year old lad, he's done nothing wrong. Maybe he should've kept better check on his raging hormones and thought about what he was saying before he said it, but if she said he was 16 and he was 17, then he's actually done nothing wrong, but it's still technically paedophilia. Of course, it could also be your stereotypical 30-something sleazeball.

 

Doesn't really matter - the law is still the law. A 17 year old grooming a person who is underage is still illegal.

[elsiegee40]

In the eyes of the law, the victim is the child. She was 15.

 

She should not have gone on the adult websites. The school should have been educating on appropriate use. Depending on when this occurred, a member of staff should have been making sure the class was on task and not Skype-ing in a lesson. The school should have had filtering in place. This IS a Safeguarding issue. The fact that the girl involved may have chosen to deliberately bypass all those measures doesn't change the fact that she is the victim. It doesn't even help that she could have done the same with her own phone ... or done it off the premises. Schools have a duty to give young people the tools to keep themselves safe off the premises... they did not succeed. How much the school is to blame depends on things we cannot know... however, I would not want to be the Head or a Givernor there at the moment.

[hardtailstar]

slightly off topic here but this is speaking as a youth leader who deals with 13-18 year olds.

 

Teenagers are much more aware of consequences and issues today then probably we were when we were that age.

 

Ive had plenty of conversations with the teenagers in my care on a range of subjects and they are pretty clued up on them.

 

Yes I may just have a select bunch have been listening and I know some will need more care and guidance for things.

 

But I do think people and the media give teenagers less credit then is due. Teenagers are much more aware of things then they used to be.

[X-13]

How much the school is to blame depends on things we cannot know... however, I would not want to be the Head or a Givernor there at the moment.

 

+1 this.

 

I also wouldn't want to be the person in charge of the network...

[elsiegee40]

slightly off topic here but this is speaking as a youth leader who deals with 13-18 year olds.

 

Teenagers are much more aware of consequences and issues today then probably we were when we were that age.

 

Ive had plenty of conversations with the teenagers in my care on a range of subjects and they are pretty clued up on them.

 

Yes I may just have a select bunch have been listening and I know some will need more care and guidance for things.

 

But I do think people and the media give teenagers less credit then is due. Teenagers are much more aware of things then they used to be.

 

The law has a very firm position on who is to blame although the judge in this case cause a right hoo-ha by suggesting that the teacher, in a position of trust, was groomed by a 16 year old girl. The judge probably would not have said this had the student been 15 and not 16.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30813335

[localzuk]

That statement in itself is ridiculous, if you can tell someone's real age with such reliability then good for you but saying you're alarmed by "this attitude" when someone post a counter statement is also ridiculous.

 

What is alarming is the victim blaming of a child.

[Garacesh]

A child can lie to get something but not understand the consequences of their actions. It is NOT the child's fault if those consequences happen.

Yes it is. When I was ~15-16 I was involved in a fair few issues that I won't go into detail with because I was drinking underage. You're damn right those incidents were my fault for being drunk. Are you trying to say, should the law have been involved, that I should have gotten off scott-free for being underage? Or do you think that something more appropriate should have been given, such as a good, strong talking to about what I did was wrong and why, maybe a caution? I think that would be much more appropriate rather than "Underage. No repercussions."

 

The law bans the sale of alcohol to underage people. It does not ban the consumption of alcohol by minors. My actions were not illegal. Just as the girl's actions here were not illegal. The actions of the other party were illegal!

I'm not saying they're not. I'm saying she is partly.. partly to blame for this. Maybe not legally. But morally.

 

Doesn't really matter - the law is still the law. A 17 year old grooming a person who is underage is still illegal.

Moot point anyway as he's apparently 20-something (see my previous edit) but I wasn't disagreeing that it was illegal, I was saying it's entirely possible that the person on the other end didn't realise they were doing something illegal as she had lied about her age. But like I said, moot point.

 

In the eyes of the law, the victim is the child. She was 15.

 

She should not have gone on the adult websites. The school should have been educating on appropriate use. Depending on when this occurred, a member of staff should have been making sure the class was on task and not Skype-ing in a lesson. The school should have had filtering in place. This IS a Safeguarding issue. The fact that the girl involved may have chosen to deliberately bypass all those measures doesn't change the fact that she is the victim. It doesn't even help that she could have done the same with her own phone ... or done it off the premises. Schools have a duty to give young people the tools to keep themselves safe off the premises... they did not succeed. How much the school is to blame depends on things we cannot know... however, I would not want to be the Head or a Givernor there at the moment.

I don't think anybody is disagreeing it's a safeguarding issue - I'm certainly not, the school and her parents should have, and could have, done much more. All I'm trying to say is that the blame rests with all parties.. The school, the parents, the bloke on the other end and the girl herself.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Garacesh

[hardtailstar]

The law has a very firm position on who is to blame although the judge in this case cause a right hoo-ha by suggesting that the teacher, in a position of trust, was groomed by a 16 year old girl. The judge probably would not have said this had the student been 15 and not 16.

 

BBC News - Bexleyheath Academy teacher Stuart Kerner sentenced for pupil affair

 

I agree the law does has a firm position but I also do think that people think that teenagers dont know anything.

 

I am just speaking of my experience.

[plexer]

What is alarming is the victim blaming of a child.

 

Don't believe I did that at all I am just speculating how it's possible with 100% accuracy to tell how old someone is online.

 

Ben

[X-13]

Don't believe I did that at all I am just speculating how it's possible with 100% accuracy to tell how old someone is online.

 

Ben

 

Obviously, what we need is a government controlled database of everyone [including real names and ages], all computers authenticating via DNA/fingerprint scanners and the computer account linked to the citizen database...

[AdamzB]

Some of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you should even be working in a school with your attitudes! The notion that and child is in any way responsible for this is disgusting and I'm sure your employers would feel the same!

[hardtailstar]

Obviously, what we need is a government controlled database of everyone [including real names and ages], all computers authenticating via DNA/fingerprint scanners and the computer account linked to the citizen database...

 

and a barcode to scan implanted on each persons right hand. Scan it with an app....

[hardtailstar]

Some of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you should even be working in a school with your attitudes! The notion that and child is in any way responsible for this is disgusting and I'm sure your employers would feel the same!

 

Did you read the article? She was the one that started the contact.

 

Anyway. I am done in here.

[Ephelyon]

I agree completely with @elsiegee40, but just as an aside and a talking point... how do we know the school wasn't in fact educating on appropriate use, but the advice was ignored? How do we know her parents weren't, or weren't doing it well enough?

 

Can we verify empirically that, as long as the quality of the education is high enough, it will always be effective?

 

This is a point that often comes up in this sector. Some people seem to believe education is the answer to everything, and indeed it's a very powerful tool that can be incredibly effective... but the fact is there are some people who are just not going to listen. Now, personally, I have a very high tolerance (and a long patience) before I come to that conclusion as I hate giving up on people. Really hate it. Can't stand it. But unfortunately there have been times in my life when I have simply had to because holding onto them was ultimately damaging me.

 

This is where the question of "to block or not to block" comes in, and a number of influential figures (@GrumbleDook being one of them) have made their stances known on the topic. My own is that education should be the first response, but where that fails we do sometimes have to put the block in place. We acknowledge this as a society also; it's why we have maximum-security prisons, for criminals with terrible offences to their name and who seem so unlikely to reform that we have to separate them from society and deny them their freedom for the greater good.

 

So back to the question... leaving out the issue of whether any blame lies with the victim, what about her education? Was it insufficient, or was it just never going to work very well on this particular person?

Edited January 19, 2015 by Ephelyon

[CAM]

What is alarming is the victim blaming of a child.

 

There is no such thing as victim blaming, only lack of responsibility. Something sorely lacking in this day and age.

 

Scratch the rest of this post, it ended up a confused mess! You made me give the Daily Fail a click. D:

Edited January 19, 2015 by CAM

[localzuk]

Some of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you should even be working in a school with your attitudes! The notion that and child is in any way responsible for this is disgusting and I'm sure your employers would feel the same!

 

Agreed!

[Arreks]

Some of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourselves if you should even be working in a school with your attitudes! The notion that and child is in any way responsible for this is disgusting and I'm sure your employers would feel the same!

 

That's very close-minded. Safeguarding is the number one priority for this girl; but anyone who thinks that she went on an adult site, lied about her age, flirted with a stranger and sent inappropriate pictures and Skyped him during lessons (and didn't turn off the iPad? but rather continued watching?) but didn't actually know what she was doing.. is an idiot.

 

The school and parents are sure as hell to blame, but that doesn't mean she is completely innocent in that situation.

 

That's my final thought anyway. Safeguarding is to keep a child safe, not to ignore their misdeeds.

[HarryMonkey]

Forgive me but I'm struggling to work out how she's not responsible for lying about her age (to get on to the website initially and then again to the person she was taking to), and then isn't responsible for having an explicit conversation with him and then isn't responsible for sending naked pictures of herself to him.

[localzuk]

Forgive me but I'm struggling to work out how she's not responsible for lying about her age (to get on to the website initially and then again to the person she was taking to), and then isn't responsible for having an explicit conversation with him and then isn't responsible for sending naked pictures of herself to him.

 

A kid, rampaging hormones, not really thinking about consequences? Kids lie all the time. Its still the bloke's job to make sure she is the age she says she is. Some of you *really* need some child protection training!

[AdamzB]

Did you read the article? She was the one that started the contact.

 

Anyway. I am done in here.

 

Your point being? Teenagers are allowed going to be curious about about things, it's called puberty. The CHILD stated she was underage but the ADULT still performed a sex and and requested the CHILD do the same. Those tasked with the CHILD's care and welfare are at fault.

[CAM]

Right, picking through the article (save you all clicking too) :

 

1) Student signed up to a social networking site (does not explicitly state adult chatroom or which site) and met stranger.

2) They swap naked selfies. This surely is the point where the offender knew what he was doing.

3) She explicitly states she is less then 16, he continues regardless.

4) They exchange Skype details.

5) She gets caught in school.

 

So the offender knew what he was doing and it's closer to a traditional grooming scenario (unlike the anonymous chatroom scenario that is being assumed here!). Question is where does the blame lie, parents school or both?

[AdamzB]

That's very close-minded. Safeguarding is the number one priority for this girl; but anyone who thinks that she went on an adult site, lied about her age, flirted with a stranger and sent inappropriate pictures and Skyped him during lessons (and didn't turn off the iPad? but rather continued watching?) but didn't actually know what she was doing.. is an idiot.

 

The school and parents are sure as hell to blame, but that doesn't mean she is completely innocent in that situation.

 

That's my final thought anyway. Safeguarding is to keep a child safe, not to ignore their misdeeds.

 

No you are the idiot. The school and parents are totally to blame. If this child has not been taught the dangers by the school and parents, and if both also are not monitoring her internet activates in any way to notice these activates then she is the innocent party. As for safeguarding it would seem that it's not just her school that is lacking as the comments on here surely reflect a lack of training across a large number of schools!

[andyturpie]

Lessons will be learned.......

[Ephelyon]

Again... how do we know they weren't already making all reasonable efforts?

 

I'm not saying I think they definitely were, just that there always seems to be this assumption that if a minor misbehaves, those responsible for them could have done more. Sometimes that's true... but then again, sometimes it isn't. We really don't know in this case. We also don't know what was going through the victim or the offender's minds. We really don't know very much about this case at all.

 

This is a classic case of pointing the finger for the sake of it. There is no reason to be throwing blame around here because it's not important. Couldn't be less important.

 

Quite simply, the school should review its safeguarding policies and block access to all forms of social media and chat rooms post haste (at least in the interim while the situation is reviewed). The victim's parents should be having very serious words with her and possibly confiscate her devices until she can show she can use them responsibly (or however they want to handle it). The offender should be brought to justice. The victim should be doing some very serious thinking about what else could have happened and nearly did.

 

See how we're able to come to all those conclusions without ranting about whose fault it is? It really doesn't matter, guys - what matters is that the victim is now safe (we presume) and that the matter is resolved on all counts by all parties, to the best of their ability. Nothing more needs to be said.