Family & Relationships1 min ago
Son Excluded - Update
I went into school and took a letter with me, exlpaining why the description should be changed, but to no avail as the Head said "it could be classed as indecent exposure, so it is a fair description".
But, he would attach the letter to the documents going to the Education Authority and the School Governors, so they will be able to know the exact incident (this has given me peace of mind).
Also, he is doing reports this week and said it will not be mentioned on his school report as my Son has done very well this year and as far as he's concerned (The Head) the matter is closed.
My Son is ready to go back to school (unlike) before as I have explained it is not an ongoing situation and that he has to take more responsiblity for his actions to avoid ever being excluded again.
Again thank you to everyone for you words of wisdom and I am feeling 100% happier than last week.
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by madham. 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.
Your original thread.
For the Head to use the line "it could be classed as indecent exposure" whilst at the same time allowing the female culprit to escape punishment for the same act shows that he has limited knowledge of the law which he cites.
Prior to The Sexual Offences Act 2003 "indecent exposure" was a male only offence but within the updated Act section 66 describes "exposure" as "intentionally exposing his or her genitals with
the intention that another person will see them and be caused alarm or distress". This extends the previous law to include female exposure. Although it is not necessary that anyone should have seen the genitals or have been caused alarm or distress for the offence to be prosecuted it would be more easily dealt with as a Public Order offence and, bearing in mind the ages of those involved, wouldn't go that far.
I am by no means advocating the prosecution of the 3 "pranksters" involved but rather that they should have received equal punishment.
For the Head to use the line "it could be classed as indecent exposure" whilst at the same time allowing the female culprit to escape punishment for the same act shows that he has limited knowledge of the law which he cites.
Prior to The Sexual Offences Act 2003 "indecent exposure" was a male only offence but within the updated Act section 66 describes "exposure" as "intentionally exposing his or her genitals with
the intention that another person will see them and be caused alarm or distress". This extends the previous law to include female exposure. Although it is not necessary that anyone should have seen the genitals or have been caused alarm or distress for the offence to be prosecuted it would be more easily dealt with as a Public Order offence and, bearing in mind the ages of those involved, wouldn't go that far.
I am by no means advocating the prosecution of the 3 "pranksters" involved but rather that they should have received equal punishment.
1 to 2 of 2
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.