A social worker who had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl in his care has avoided being sent to jail.Eh? What? I thought that was supposed to be THE big no-no, surely?
Well, no, incredible as it seems, it wasn't having sex with her that got him into trouble. It was taking pictures:
I give up...
Richard Superville, 51, of Ceylon Road, Westcliff, was caught out after explicit photographs of the teenager were found on his laptop, a court heard.
Although Superville had not broken the law by his affair – because the girl was 16 – he had committed a criminal offence by taking pictures of her topless.
It could have been worse? - Am I right in thinking that if *she* had taken the photos and then texted them to him, she would have been the one charged?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't worry - before long every house will be fitted with security cameras, so we can be monitored 24/7 by our "caring" government. Then who's going to be committing a criminal offence?
ReplyDeleteIf you are considered old enough to be able to consent to sex then you should be old enough to have your picture taken by your partner (or 3rd party if that is your thing) whilst doing so.
ReplyDeleteThis case just makes a mockery of the two year age gap between the age of consent and the age of majority.
It's a consequence of our crazy laws. Pardon my bluntness, but it is quite legal to shag a 16-year-old girl senseless in every way your imagination can permit, and yet two years (minus one day) later, a picture of her on your computer in a fully-clothed but 'provocative' pose will have you in prison and on the sex offenders' register for life. The inconsistency of consent to sex at 16 and consent to photography at 18 is ludicrous. They should be equalised, one way or another.
ReplyDeleteClarissa, The point of the two year gap is to allow 16/17 year olds to have sex while preventing them from appearing in commercial pornography, which I think is fair enough. Obviously some judgment should be applied, and equally obviously it isn't, see the sexting cases.
ReplyDeleteThere is no specific offence of having otherwise legal sex with a young person in your care, and it would be a bugger to draft, anyway. You'd have to precisely define 'care', and then exactly when it starts and stops.
It'd be easier to say that anyone who works with children isn't allowed to have sex with any of them, i.e. anyone under 18.
Legal contradictory madness, as usual. But for me, the age of consent or the age at which one can engage in the production pornography is not the issue.* This social worker, while not meriting the appellation of sex offender, was in a position of trust, and has violated professional ethics. Young people who are, or have been, in the care system are psychologically fragile, and damaged beyond belief. He should have faced some penalty. Would that a little more flexibility could be applied to the law, and judges could use some discretion, along with a good dollop of common sense.
ReplyDelete*One contributer to the comments thread on the link to the story advised readers to get rid of old copies of The Sun. Does anyone know whether 16-year-old Page Three girls still appear in that newspaper?
Unfortunately the law - and indeed public opinion - persecutes men who have sex with underage girls far more than women who have sex with underage boys.
ReplyDeleteNeither is right but as Clarissa says if you are old enough to consent to sex than you are old enough to consent to pictures.
"Am I right in thinking that if *she* had taken the photos and then texted them to him, she would have been the one charged?"
ReplyDeleteThat's certainly happened in the States, not sure about over here.
"If you are considered old enough to be able to consent to sex then you should be old enough to have your picture taken by your partner (or 3rd party if that is your thing) whilst doing so."
Precisely!
"The point of the two year gap is to allow 16/17 year olds to have sex while preventing them from appearing in commercial pornography, which I think is fair enough. Obviously some judgment should be applied..."
And there's the rub. We know, from years of bitter experience, that judgement WON'T be applied, particularly when target culture comes into play.
Hard cases make bad law...
"One contributer to the comments thread on the link to the story advised readers to get rid of old copies of The Sun. Does anyone know whether 16-year-old Page Three girls still appear in that newspaper?"
Not any more, but when this law came in, I remember someone on a blog pointing out that this would make old copies of Sam Fox's Page 3 photos technically illegal...
"Unfortunately the law - and indeed public opinion - persecutes men who have sex with underage girls far more than women who have sex with underage boys."
Yes, there's undoubtedly an element of 'lucky chap!' in the reporting of such, no matter how creepy the actual circumstances....