Basically this, only better-worded than me. :tongue:
If you don't want your views to be challenged could you not just ... piss off? Because the whole point of an internet forum is for different views to be offered and if I come across something I disagree with should I not be allowed to pursue the issue even further?

You said "attitude" not "view" - same old old tactics - get personal, bait, bully and bluster ..... :rolleyes:

Physician, heal thyself ..... :hmph:

Dialogue terminated

I disagree. I think he asks a very interesting question. we are constantly told gay people cant help who they are attracted to, all this poster is saying, shouldnt the same rule apply to this teacher? yes hes broken thelaw and will go to prison. but should society burn him at the stake or in fact be more liberal in our thinking? did he simply fall in love with a girl a year too soon?

Megan lived on kebabs
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz28Bk7P9y3

'

Not quite the high life, then ..... :rolleyes:

Thank you.

AFAIK, neither party is gay so that is not an issue in this thread - IMO, the poster was merely being personally confrontational, a tactic I am familiar with and now choose to ignore.

How on earth is that being confrontational?

That was questioning your post ... "That sort of attitude" referred to your '"Love" ..... or infatuation with an impressionable child?' post. That also falls under the banner of attitude. Your attitude on the guy involved.

Definition of attitude ... A settled way of thinking or feeling, typically reflected in a person's behavior.

I fail to see what was so wrong in that comment and how your ... err... thoughts on the guy don't fall into the category of attitude.

Megan Stammers: schoolgirl breaks her silence to thank people for their support
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-support.html

Good for her ..... :)

She went with him willingly, what the bloody hell does she need support for

youre avoiding the moral question posed. I think its a legitimate question.

I don't.

Youre still avoiding the question?

Ignoring it.

Well besides the fact that she was underage, he was also her teacher. Parents shouldn't have to worry about teachers running off with their underage kids while at school and for that alone it was morally wrong of him to do what he did. We may not be able to help our feelings for people but he as an adult and more specifically him as a teacher, in a position of responsibility should not have acted on these feelings. Not to mention the fact he was already a married man.

I don't really see the comparison between; a married teacher illegally running off to a foreign country with an underage pupil, and somebody being gay, tbh

lol, yeah exactly.

She's getting treated like some sort of massive victim in all of this ****ed off to france for a few days feasted on Kebabs and then came home and everyone is like " Aww hope your okay Megan :) "

We cant control who we are attracted to, I agree with that. But we can control whether we act on it or not. And in this case, the guy should have waited until she was at least 16.

He was her teacher, he shouldn't have got involved with her at all while he was still teaching at that school and she was still a student

I just can't bring myself to care about this really (pointless post alert)

Well thanks for letting us know that Nathan

I very much doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid if she wasnt underage.

100% agreed. Lets just hope they didnt have sex. if they didnt then his crime is diminished. he wont teach again thats for sure. but if there was no sex, itll be interesting then to see what his punishment should be. if they did have sex, albeit with her consent , he will face a few years in prison.

yes ignoring it is the cowards way out.

I think he is being done for abduction, not for having relations with a minor.

Or he was last time I read about it anyway, might have changed now.

In regards to the bit in bold, good. He's clearly not cut out to be a teacher.