Sounds like teacher/student sex is an even bigger problem than we know about.


A Massachusetts state bill that would outlaw sex between teachers and students 19 years of age and younger, and which is strongly supported by the police, has yet to be endorsed by the state teachers’ union.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/21/tea...t-sex.html

They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

What's to review?

Stay off of the students.

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

prove it or you're the liar.

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

Its been 6 months. Do they have reading comprehension issues?

(07-21-2017 02:11 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

prove it or you're the liar.

"The Massachusetts Teachers Association’s priority is always to protect students and the educational environment," the union said in a statement to Fox News. "While we are still examining the many components of this proposed legislation, we understand that its intent is to help ensure that our schools are nurturing places for students to learn and grow."
RTFA

(07-21-2017 02:14 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:11 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

prove it or you're the liar.

"The Massachusetts Teachers Association’s priority is always to protect students and the educational environment," the union said in a statement to Fox News. "While we are still examining the many components of this proposed legislation, we understand that its intent is to help ensure that our schools are nurturing places for students to learn and grow."
RTFA

no link? Yeah you're a liar.

(07-21-2017 02:14 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:11 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

prove it or you're the liar.

"The Massachusetts Teachers Association’s priority is always to protect students and the educational environment," the union said in a statement to Fox News. "While we are still examining the many components of this proposed legislation, we understand that its intent is to help ensure that our schools are nurturing places for students to learn and grow."
RTFA

Its been 6 months. Ae they having this much difficulty in making up their mind whether or not they want to give up sex with students under 19?

(07-21-2017 02:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:14 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:11 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

prove it or you're the liar.

"The Massachusetts Teachers Association’s priority is always to protect students and the educational environment," the union said in a statement to Fox News. "While we are still examining the many components of this proposed legislation, we understand that its intent is to help ensure that our schools are nurturing places for students to learn and grow."
RTFA

no link? Yeah you're a liar.

It's the third paragraph in the article, RTFA stands for read the f*cking article which you didn't.

While I agree with the fact act of a teacher having sex with a student should be illegal, why is this legislation strictly targeting school personnel? The current age of consent in that state is 16. Why not just raise the age and make it illegal for any adult to have sex with a child?

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  While I agree with the fact act of a teacher having sex with a student should be illegal, why is this legislation strictly targeting school personnel? The current age of consent in that state is 16. Why not just raise the age and make it illegal for any adult to have sex with a child?

Many locales and states have laws against having sex with a person who they are in an authoritative position over. Its to prevent coercion or undue influence over the person.

This law doesnt go far enough because it limits the age to 19. So instead of preventing coercion, they probably are tired of hearing the teacher excuses that they thought the child was old enough.

Sad.

And the teachers union will not disavow sex with students.

Sad.

(07-21-2017 02:17 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:15 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:14 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:11 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:06 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  They are not refusing they are examining it, your post is a lie.

prove it or you're the liar.

"The Massachusetts Teachers Association’s priority is always to protect students and the educational environment," the union said in a statement to Fox News. "While we are still examining the many components of this proposed legislation, we understand that its intent is to help ensure that our schools are nurturing places for students to learn and grow."
RTFA

no link? Yeah you're a liar.

It's the third paragraph in the article, RTFA stands for read the f*cking article which you didn't.

DefConn is a total troll. He has pulled this same tactic over and over again. He never engages in good faith. He has pulled this same tactic a dozen times over by claiming proof of something then dismissing an obviously not forged quote over the lack of a link. And does he say "thx for the quote but where is it from?" Nope he acts like a complete tool by calling you a liar over it and claiming you already lost. Only one who is the lowest denomination of intellect and ethics would try to claim victory on a technicality in face of overwhelming odds that the other poster is correct.

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  While I agree with the fact act of a teacher having sex with a student should be illegal, why is this legislation strictly targeting school personnel? The current age of consent in that state is 16. Why not just raise the age and make it illegal for any adult to have sex with a child?

Because they have a position of authority over the students?

(07-21-2017 02:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  While I agree with the fact act of a teacher having sex with a student should be illegal, why is this legislation strictly targeting school personnel? The current age of consent in that state is 16. Why not just raise the age and make it illegal for any adult to have sex with a child?

Many locales and states have laws against having sex with a person who they are in an authoritative position over. Its to prevent coercion or undue influence over the person.

This law doesnt go far enough because it limits the age to 19. So instead of preventing coercion, they probably are tired of hearing the teacher excuses that they thought the child was old enough.

Sad.

And the teachers union will not disavow sex with students.

Sad.

Have you read the bill?

It brings up training for teachers (Section 2), the assessment and modification of physical facilities and spaces to reduce opportunities for sexual abuse (albeit briefly in Section 2a(5)), additional instruction for students (Section 3), and changes to how employees are hired (Section 4), among other things.

While I support the bill, it's not as simple as "Teachers can't have sex with students".

Today I saw NY pass a ban on child marriage. It took 30 days from the legislature to pass it before the gov signed it. 30 days over something 100x simpler than this bill. This stuff takes time.

(07-21-2017 02:46 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  While I agree with the fact act of a teacher having sex with a student should be illegal, why is this legislation strictly targeting school personnel? The current age of consent in that state is 16. Why not just raise the age and make it illegal for any adult to have sex with a child?

Many locales and states have laws against having sex with a person who they are in an authoritative position over. Its to prevent coercion or undue influence over the person.

This law doesnt go far enough because it limits the age to 19. So instead of preventing coercion, they probably are tired of hearing the teacher excuses that they thought the child was old enough.

Sad.

And the teachers union will not disavow sex with students.

Sad.

Have you read the bill?

It brings up training for teachers (Section 2), the assessment and modification of physical facilities and spaces to reduce opportunities for sexual abuse (albeit briefly in Section 2a(5)), additional instruction for students (Section 3), and changes to how employees are hired (Section 4), among other things.

While I support the bill, it's not as simple as "Teachers can't have sex with students".

Does it include any provisions for making it easier and quicker to fire a teacher if it occurs? Thats where the hangup is at.

(07-21-2017 02:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:46 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:25 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  While I agree with the fact act of a teacher having sex with a student should be illegal, why is this legislation strictly targeting school personnel? The current age of consent in that state is 16. Why not just raise the age and make it illegal for any adult to have sex with a child?

Many locales and states have laws against having sex with a person who they are in an authoritative position over. Its to prevent coercion or undue influence over the person.

This law doesnt go far enough because it limits the age to 19. So instead of preventing coercion, they probably are tired of hearing the teacher excuses that they thought the child was old enough.

Sad.

And the teachers union will not disavow sex with students.

Sad.

Have you read the bill?

It brings up training for teachers (Section 2), the assessment and modification of physical facilities and spaces to reduce opportunities for sexual abuse (albeit briefly in Section 2a(5)), additional instruction for students (Section 3), and changes to how employees are hired (Section 4), among other things.

While I support the bill, it's not as simple as "Teachers can't have sex with students".

Does it include any provisions for making it easier and quicker to fire a teacher if it occurs? Thats where the hangup is at.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't totally understand what it says about the investigation process, but I am seeing quite a bit about the actual punishments based on the severity of the action.

Once you get to some of the bottom sections, they start citing other sections and chapters of existing laws.

I'm going to read through it again, and hopefully I can give a better answer.

(07-21-2017 02:46 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  While I support the bill, it's not as simple as "Teachers can't have sex with students".

Of course it isn't -- and UoMsU and FoxNews knew that from the beginning.

(07-21-2017 03:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:46 PM)ARandomHerdFan Wrote:  While I support the bill, it's not as simple as "Teachers can't have sex with students".

Of course it isn't -- and UoMsU and FoxNews knew that from the beginning.

Or at the very least UoMsU didn't have the basic common sense to call BS. It's amazing how easy it is to convince a con to believe right wing bulls***

No ... UoMsU is way too smart for that (getting the wool pulled over his eyes), I'm afraid.

He knew it was a smear from the beginning. That's mostly how he gets his jolly's on here, smearing whomever doesn't subscribe to his belief-set, for no reason.