Which one deserves to be sacked?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/2vzw6m6

http://tinyurl.com/38yomrw

Compare the two cases,

Did the Paramedic deserve the sack?

Should the woman teacher be struck off?

[sandyRoe]

Neither. What do you think they have done that merits losing their jobs?

[anotheoldgit]

Another one to be added to the list.

http://tinyurl.com/3ylger3

[Gromit]

1. No, both consenting adults
2. No, nothing happened
3. No, a private matter

By the way, what is your point?

[jno]

none of the above. Why people's sex lives should leave them open to being sacked, if there's no suggestion it made either party less able to do the job, is beyond me.

I'd have had some doubts about the second one but it seems, as Gromit says, that nothing actually happened.

[MickyMacgraw]

The paramedic unless he was kissing and fondling the girl on duty should've been warned not sacked especially after 239 years of saving lives.
The teacher? Wasn't she grooming? Instant sacking I'd say.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

Of all persons to ask "what is your point".

You regularly post such questions, then sit back and see which is the safe side to be on, before making a comment.

I first thought I haven't any particular point to make on this subject, I only included it to encourage debate.

But upon reading both Sandy's and your own view, I am now ready to include mine, and that is to say that in my opinion the female teacher should loose her job, for her allegedly having improper relationships with girls aged 13 to 16.

Had she had been a guy, there would have not been any argument, he would have been out on his ear.

[anotheoldgit]

Micky

"after 239 years of saving lives"

Wow! he doesn't look a year older than 59.

[MickyMacgraw]

:) indeed.

[jno]

people shouldn't be sacked for 'allegedly' doing anything. They investigated and found no evidence of anything to charge her with. Splashing each other with cold water is well short of grooming (and indeed would have exactly the opposite effect, I suppose.) I've no idea what she was up to but it does not appear to have been offensive.

[ChuckFickens]

Don't see anything wrong with the paramedic one (I think I might know him!)

Teacher one seems strange and is the only one that should be investigated.

don't see what's wrong with the army one.

[MickyMacgraw]

Jno please read the link properly, Im not sure whether you have kids or not but even those without kids would be alarmed at this behaviour, if my son or daughter came home from school and I seen over a thousand txt messages with some saying "I love you" and then noticed teddy bears and perfume or aftershave and gifts in their rooms and then heard that the teacher had a shower with them and was playing with them i would hit the roof as it's clear whats going on.

[Gromit]

The teacher one is a typical Daily Mail report. If you read the last sentence first, you save yourself a lot of time.

// Police conducted an investigation into the teacher's alleged behaviour but Mrs Lloyd-Jones was not charged with any crime. //

[MickyMacgraw]

Gromit how many times have the police made mistakes? Many. The reason she was not charged maybe because she had a good lawyer and was careful in her grooming. ie, The shower incident wasn't sexual it was just messing around.
The gifts and perfumes where for their good work and because their my favourite pupils.
The many text messages and me saying i loved them was purely on a friendly basis.
See what i mean? The kids involved were probably unaware of any sexual motive hence the teacher not being charged had this went on I think that the teacher would've crossed the line after her sexual urges got the better of her and then it would be front page news.

[Gromit]

MickyMacgraw

The Police are the only ones who have power to investigate. If they conclude there is no case to answer, then that is that. It was only an investigation, it did not go to court, so there was no involvement by any silvery tongued lawyer. Her behaviour seems inappropriate when written about in a sensationalist tabloid, but the people who have examined it, say there is not a case.

[MickyMacgraw]

Gromit I believe that the teacher could've had a silver tongued lawyer in her police interview.
Ok I see what you're saying about the media blowing it up to sell papers and it does seem rather odd that with all the evidence put to us by the paper that she wasn't charged immediately.

[anotheoldgit]

Wow you are the last one who I thought would defend the Police Gromit.

Forgot about that guy they shot in the Tube, or the Stephen Lawrence affair?

/// Mrs Lloyd-Jones is facing the hearing by the General Teaching Council for Wales where she denies inappropriate behaviour with pupils.///

The hearing continues,

Let's hope they are not so lenient and the woman is sacked, while her alleged 'inappropriate behaviour' is still in it's infancy.

[jno]

Micky, yes, it seems odd, as I said in my first post. Others obviously thought so too and have looked at it more closely than I (or the Daily Mail) can. They found nothing. I'm in no position to say they obviously overlooked some damning detail.

I would have a chat with my hypothetical daughter. But I suspect the police have already done so.

[MickyMacgraw]

Aah yes I see what you were saying earlier jno. Ok let me reword my post. IF the case is as the newspaper describes it then yes she should get sacked and arrested. IF the newspapers are tarnishing an innocent teachers name in order to reap a financial reward then they should be sacked and arrested.

[anotheoldgit]

The police cannot charge her if a criminal act has not been committed.

What we have here is alleged 'inappropriate behaviour' not befitting a person in her position.

This obviously is then a case for the General Teaching Council for Wales, and if their findings show up anything that shows them concern, then they are well within their rights to sack her.

[MickyMacgraw]

Agreed.