Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Banned From Teaching.......??
61 Answers
https:/
Why isn't he in jail?
Why isn't he in jail?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the hearing was held in public and was therefore recorded - here is the report in full:-
https:/
https:/
TGT- If I could have you prosecuted for being an obnoxious gonk, I would.
*But* there is no such statute in existence at the minute (more's the pity) and therefore I cannot.
Similarly, it does not appear that there is any legislation which would enable the prosecution of Nur, at the moment. He's a despicable human being and he ought not to go unpunished......he's lost his job and at the moment that seems to be as much as can happen to him
*But* there is no such statute in existence at the minute (more's the pity) and therefore I cannot.
Similarly, it does not appear that there is any legislation which would enable the prosecution of Nur, at the moment. He's a despicable human being and he ought not to go unpunished......he's lost his job and at the moment that seems to be as much as can happen to him
TTT - // have a day off you're all wriggling to find ways why he should not be prosecuted. Ok maybe you're not nominating him for the xmas honours but I see a lot of wriggling rather than condemnation. //
Nothing that anyone has posted on here even remotely comes close to defending this reptile, and your insistence that there are such attitudes speaks more to your need to find excuses where non exist, which enables you to stir up animosity than to the people who have attempted to post their views, which are unanimous in their condemnation.
Why start a thread if your avowed intention is to sabotage it with unfounded nasty nonsense?
Nothing that anyone has posted on here even remotely comes close to defending this reptile, and your insistence that there are such attitudes speaks more to your need to find excuses where non exist, which enables you to stir up animosity than to the people who have attempted to post their views, which are unanimous in their condemnation.
Why start a thread if your avowed intention is to sabotage it with unfounded nasty nonsense?
Ok let’s recap shall we, in no particular order, it’s ok because…..
1. some 13 year olds can look like 18 year olds
2. He married the victim
3. He may not be a British National (though he’s been a teacher in UK for several years so I'd be surprised if he isn't.
4. The law was not in force until 2008, but they were together till 2009. Obviously they did not have sex after the law cam in effect in 2008, right oh!
1. some 13 year olds can look like 18 year olds
2. He married the victim
3. He may not be a British National (though he’s been a teacher in UK for several years so I'd be surprised if he isn't.
4. The law was not in force until 2008, but they were together till 2009. Obviously they did not have sex after the law cam in effect in 2008, right oh!
TTT - // Ok let’s recap shall we, in no particular order, it’s ok because….. //
You can stop right there.
No-one has said, or even inferred, that it is 'OK', so the rest of your post is meaningless.
You seem hell-bent on distorting this thread until it implodes, so I am sure you will find diminishing numbers of posters willing to indulge you by replying to your ludicrous posts.
You can stop right there.
No-one has said, or even inferred, that it is 'OK', so the rest of your post is meaningless.
You seem hell-bent on distorting this thread until it implodes, so I am sure you will find diminishing numbers of posters willing to indulge you by replying to your ludicrous posts.
I trust you were typing that^ when I posted mine but I'll address the points you raise.
1. some 13 year olds can look like 18 year olds[i Yes, they can. It is a statement not an excuse.
[i]2. He married the victim] This takes him out of the 'sex-tourist' bracket because he entered into a (wrong but legal in Bangladesh) long-term relationship; very different from Glitter.
[i]3. He may not be a British National (though he’s been a teacher in UK for several years so I'd be surprised if he isn't.[i] A suspicion on your part does not make it so; he needs to return to Bngladesh regardless.
4. The law was not in force until 2008, but they were together till 2009. Obviously they did not have sex after the law cam in effect in 2008, right oh! If the girl was in Bangladesh and he was teaching in UK there may not have been any sexual contact between them. In any case, I hope that if there *is* something that he can be prosecuted with, he is.
Although, with a foreign national committing a 'legal act in a foreign country' in that country, I don't see why we should pay for a prosecution.....
1. some 13 year olds can look like 18 year olds[i Yes, they can. It is a statement not an excuse.
[i]2. He married the victim] This takes him out of the 'sex-tourist' bracket because he entered into a (wrong but legal in Bangladesh) long-term relationship; very different from Glitter.
[i]3. He may not be a British National (though he’s been a teacher in UK for several years so I'd be surprised if he isn't.[i] A suspicion on your part does not make it so; he needs to return to Bngladesh regardless.
4. The law was not in force until 2008, but they were together till 2009. Obviously they did not have sex after the law cam in effect in 2008, right oh! If the girl was in Bangladesh and he was teaching in UK there may not have been any sexual contact between them. In any case, I hope that if there *is* something that he can be prosecuted with, he is.
Although, with a foreign national committing a 'legal act in a foreign country' in that country, I don't see why we should pay for a prosecution.....
Talbot - // Wind your neck in TTT - I'm not making excuses, just making a point that many 13 year olds could be taken for 18.
Well, I don't believe that to be true and it is a (although granted somewhat tenuous) excuse. //
It may nor may not be an excuse, but the point about that in this debate is that Maggie did not offer it as an excuse, and TTT's attempts to make it appear that she did are both untrue, and rather nasty.
Well, I don't believe that to be true and it is a (although granted somewhat tenuous) excuse. //
It may nor may not be an excuse, but the point about that in this debate is that Maggie did not offer it as an excuse, and TTT's attempts to make it appear that she did are both untrue, and rather nasty.
Talbot - // andy-hughes
It may nor may not be an excuse
Be brave...which is it? //
Brave? What on earth are you talking about?
From Mr Nur's point of view, and I am sure anyone in his position would use anything remotely feasible to bolster his defence, it is an excuse, somewhat mitigated by the fact that he knew the age of the child in question.
From my pint of view, and I think I an speak with confidence for everyone who has posted with the exception of TTT - it is clearly and absolutely not an excuse.
It may nor may not be an excuse
Be brave...which is it? //
Brave? What on earth are you talking about?
From Mr Nur's point of view, and I am sure anyone in his position would use anything remotely feasible to bolster his defence, it is an excuse, somewhat mitigated by the fact that he knew the age of the child in question.
From my pint of view, and I think I an speak with confidence for everyone who has posted with the exception of TTT - it is clearly and absolutely not an excuse.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Technology15 mins ago
