[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

‘emotional instability’ when they first had sex because his wife had just had a miscarriage.

what a load of utter crap

I've got to agree.

We have only his word that she was the predator, and carrying a condom smacks to me of 'being prepared' in the vilest opportunist sense.

If she was 16 when sex first took place, then his 'offence' was not a legal issue, but very much a 'moral' and 'ethical' one, and his actions are not mitigated because of her age.

He was in a position of trust - a position which afforded him access to children and naive young adults, and even if the 16 year old was infatuated, he willingly availed himself of an opportunity to turn that childish infatuation into a sexual relationship for his own gratification instead of handling it with maturity and self-control.

No intelligent, mature, middle-aged man can ever be 'forced' or 'pressured' into having a relationship - let alone sexual one - with a 16 year old girl, no matter how infatuated or 'persistent' she is alleged to have been, and he has no excuses at all for his actions when there were other solutions available to him.

Perhaps this sick-minded Judge would have decreed Jimmy Savile's vile sex with some of those patients he was trusted with and had access to as OK because they were over the age of consent and were infatuated with him.

The judge needs removing for her comments, her bias, and her total lack of wisdom.