Forum menu
I know we all love a debate on ethics etc.
My Wife has a PT, She (the PT) the core service is £40 a month, for that you get a training plan with remote support She does very well from it, based on the numbers in the group (which you have to pay to be part of) she's taking in about £4k-£5k a month.
I also started to work with this PT about 4 months ago, it wasn't really working for me, I was happier doing my own thing in the gym. So I was planning to leave anyway.
Then, there was 'the incident'.
Someone discovered that the PT was a sex offender, no other way to describe it. Her specific crime was that 6 years previously, when she was 26 and working as a Teacher she had a sexual relationship with a pupil, she was accused of doing so when he was 14 or 15, but convicted of having sex with a 16 year old whilst abusing a position of trust the prosecution showed pictures and explicit messages from her phone from when he was under 16. She was caught when she took him to a sexual health clinic to deal with an STI and given a 10 month sentence, but she was lucky that it was suspended, she never spent a night in a cell.
Obviously the PT was upset that this story had come to light. She hides it because she uses her brand name in place of her surname, but her surname is on bank statements etc.
As above, I was pretty certain I was going to stop using her anyway, but my Wife argued the intangible motivation I got from her was worth the money. As for her conviction, We agreed that she's done the crime and the court had punished her and she had every right to earn a living now. Although, and I stand by this, I believe if she had been Male in the same situation the court of public opinion would have been much harsher, in fact, I have a feeling the legal court sentence wouldn't have been suspended either.
It's what happened next that tipped me over the edge. The PT, in a series of angry messages both online and via group messages let out a tirade against these Trolls who were out of get her (okay, fair enough I suppose) But she said "it wasn't how it seemed" and how she was a victim in all of this. Never once admitting she'd done anything wrong, or showing any sort of remorse. So I sacked her.
Here's the thing though, if you were in my shoes, and you were getting good value from the service, would you have sacked her, or carried on?
The internet is not real life. There are no winners. I wouldn’t have sacked someone who was giving a good service and who has served a conviction. Either you believe in restitution or you don’t?
Why not just tattoo “sec offender” on her forehead. Just to be sure in those zoom coaching sessions?
But she said “it wasn’t how it seemed” and how she was a victim in all of this. Never once admitting she’d done anything wrong, or showing any sort of remorse.
And in a Scooby Doo fashion "she'd have gotten away with it if wasn't for those meddling kids"
Not sure why you're bothered, you were gonna bin her anyway OP.
So, you were going to leave your PT anyway, and you've now left the PT. If nothing had come out of the woodwork you were leaving, stuff has come out and you're leaving....... what's morality question again?
I think even sex offenders (except those with restrictive orders) have the right for their sentence, once served, to be spent. I think that also having had a history of a sex offence follow you around for a bit, that you'd also be a bit defensive about it, so I can forgive (or at least understand why) that also.
I think if you get a useful service from her, and you're in no danger from her, why would you not continue to use her?
Can you "sack" a PT ?... surely you just stop going and dont pay them....
This thread is useless without pics.....
Lets be honest. It was pretty much every school boys fantasy.
So, you were going to leave your PT anyway, and you’ve now left the PT. If nothing had come out of the woodwork you were leaving, stuff has come out and you’re leaving……. what’s morality question again?
Is it that OP doesn't want to give the impression that he's sacking the PT off as a result of finding out she was a wrong'un?
Its not about you though is it?
You were already on your way out the door.
Your other half though , theres the moral dilema.
Stick and show support for a known sex offender ,or leave and bang another nail in her coffin
( figuritvely speaking )
The internet is not real life. There are no winners. I wouldn’t have sacked someone who was giving a good service and who has served a conviction. Either you believe in restitution or you don’t?
Why not just tattoo “sec offender” on her forehead. Just to be sure in those zoom coaching sessions?
I do, it wasn't the fact she'd committed a crime and had been punished for it, it was how she refused to accept she'd ever done anything wrong in the first place (despite pleading guilty), in fact still felt victimised.
If she's said "I did a bad thing, but I paid for it and now I want to move on" I could accept that, but to say "it's not how it seems" and then rant on for days about how terrible it was for her, really annoyed me, she had no remorse at all about it.
Is it that OP doesn’t want to give the impression that he’s sacking the PT off as a result of finding out she was a wrong’un?
Might be, but leaving a PT or gym is hardly unusual. Paying £40/month for something you dont want otoh.....
So, you were going to leave your PT anyway, and you’ve now left the PT. If nothing had come out of the woodwork you were leaving, stuff has come out and you’re leaving……. what’s morality question again?
Is it that OP doesn’t want to give the impression that he’s sacking the PT off as a result of finding out she was a wrong’un?
Nope, just a hypothetical question for the benefit of having something to 'chat' about
"Here’s the thing though, if you were in my shoes, and you were getting good value from the service, would you have sacked her, or carried on?"
If she’s said “I did a bad thing, but I paid for it and now I want to move on” I could accept that
What difference would accepting it make when you were leaving anyway? Now you just have an extra reason to not keep paying her
I would have ditched her and been happy she is outed.
" But she said “it wasn’t how it seemed” and how she was a victim in all of this. Never once admitting she’d done anything wrong, or showing any sort of remorse. So I sacked her."
this utterly stinks and is the sex offenders mantra.
What difference would accepting it make when you were leaving anyway? Now you just have an extra reason to not keep paying her
I suppose it was the final straw, but as above, it's more of a hypothetical question, if you were happy with the service, would you:
A) Leave because she's a sex offender
B) Lease because she seemingly has no remorse for being a sex offender, refusing even to accept she was.
C) Carry on using the service.
If she’s said “I did a bad thing, but I paid for it and now I want to move on” I could accept that,
Perhaps in time she will, perhaps at the moment she's just very defensive about it all. People are fallible and make terrible decisions that they come to regret. Perhaps she's just not there yet.
If you were going to sack her off anyway, it makes no difference does it?
I don't want to get all Jordan Peterson here but if this was a guy he would have no one left in his PT group by this point IMO.
I agree to an extent about people deserving a chance but if she shows no remorse and acts the victim...
it was how she refused to accept she’d ever done anything wrong in the first place (despite pleading guilty), in fact still felt victimised
While I'm sure many guilty people wrongly feel hard done by can you not envisage a situation where somebody would plead guilty to something they didn't do?
“Here’s the thing though, if you were in my shoes, and you were getting good value from the service, would you have sacked her, or carried on?”
Carried on. but...
-wouldn't ever pay for a personal trainer
-wouldn't ever read online tirades
-ain't got a wife
so I don't think my decision making process is the same as the OP's in any form.
There is always a chance that things are not in fact what they seem. You don't really have all the facts, do you?
Not sticking up for her here, of course, because I don't have all the facts either. Just something to bear in mind.
I don’t want to get all Jordan Peterson here but if this was a guy he would have no one left in his PT group by this point IMO.
I tend to agree. I also have misgivings about the "position of trust" stuff, but that's a discussion for another thread.
it’s more of a hypothetical question, if you were happy with the service, would you:
A) Leave because she’s a sex offender
B) Lease because she seemingly has no remorse for being a sex offender, refusing even to accept she was.
C) Carry on using the service.
Honestly, I don't know, and to demonstrate how hypocritical I am, I think my response would be different if she were a he. It's a tricky one.
Lets be honest. It was pretty much every school boys fantasy.
I'm pretty sure that despite what they might think, 14-15 year old boys being groomed for sex by a predator isn't top of the list when it comes to future mental health.
There is always a chance that things are not in fact what they seem. You don’t really have all the facts, do you?
I have more facts than I'm willing to share, the case was pretty widely reported at the time, locally and nationally. In fact, I think there was a STW thread about it.
You'll have to trust me that it's a indisputable fact that she had a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy who she taught and that she shared explicit images and messages with him when he was 14 or 15 and that she was tried and convicted for the sexual relationship. The Boy confided with a Nurse who she'd taken him to, to be tested from an STI. "Every school boys fantasy" or not, he felt he needed to tell someone about it.
Her defence was that she was unaware that she wasn't allowed to have sex with a pupil, even if they were 16 and she wasn't charged for the messages.
It's all public domain stuff, but it still doesn't feel right naming and shaming.
I’m pretty sure that despite what they might think, 14-15 year old boys being groomed for sex by a predator isn’t top of the list when it comes to future mental health.
Yep, even in 2021 we like to think that all Teenage Boys are sex crazed monsters who'd shag a lamppost if they could and would obviously love being in a relationship with one of their teachers 10 years their elder, whilst all Teenage Girls are innocent and virtuous and would only have sex with someone in the same circumstances because of some horrible mental or physical abuse they'd received from them.
it was how she refused to accept she’d ever done anything wrong in the first place (despite pleading guilty), in fact still felt victimised
I think there may be a difference in acceptable response when being trolled on the internet, rather than in a conversation in real life.
Probably would have stopped using her after the internet rant, rather than for the initial offence. If she doesn't understand what she did wrong, then her rehabilitation isn't quite there yet.
I do, it wasn’t the fact she’d committed a crime and had been punished for it, it was how she refused to accept she’d ever done anything wrong in the first place (despite pleading guilty), in fact still felt victimised.
I'm not sure this is a genuine moral quandry, so much as realising that someone is a ****?
I think you made the correct call.
FFS get a grip ...
You are not the morality police.
She was caught, served her time.
She will also regret hugely what she has done - and the circumstances surrounding it you have not idea of, and what was happening in her life.
She has been caught, done her time - and had her life wrecked by it. Rather than sitting at home and taking benefits, she is out trying to get a life and do the right thing and get her life back on track.
HTH
so much as realising that someone is a ****?
If she's been in the public eye because of this, then I'd imagine her life has been filled to brim with all sorts of stuff that while some would say is deserved, but nevertheless would be pretty awful. She can probably see the business that she's built up over the last few years crumbling away in front of her eyes, in all likelihood not for the first time I'll wager.
While it probably would have been better to come clean from the get go, I can get why she wouldn't It takes different people different time to come to terms with what they've done
I don’t want to get all Jordan Peterson here but if this was a guy he would have no one left in his PT group by this point IMO.
correct - bad double standards onthis issue
Lets be honest. It was pretty much every school boys fantasy.
And that right there shows it
MOlgrips - its her refusal to accept wrongdoing and to use the standard sexual predator defense that irks me and thats why to me she should be shunned because it shows she did not learn the lesson or show remorse
there are zero circumtances where a teacher having sex with a underage pupil is acceptable
I refer you to my earlier comment. It's not possible to fairly judge without knowing the whole story. She's refusing to accept the wrongdoing she's accused of (apparently, according to one source) but you don't know what actually went on. These things are complex and nuanced.
there are zero circumtances where a teacher having sex with a underage pupil is acceptable
As I said, I am not condoning that. But there is a lot we don't know. I'm just asking you to think about that. I'm probably wasting my time so I'll leave it there.
A. Having had a dealings with child abusers I would sack her off and have nothing to do with her. Normally I’m a turn the other cheek kinda guy but nonces (a teacher grooming a 14 year old with explicit pictures) can f right off. Ymmv.
MOlgrips - if you agree that its wrong for a teacher to have sex with a child in their care under any circumstances then what else is there to know? Nothing.
Yes I believe very strongly in rehabilitation but the excuse she gives is the standard sex offenders excuse. There is no excuse, there can never be an excuse, she shows no remorse. she is not yet rehabilitated
its her refusal to accept wrongdoing and to use the standard sexual predator defense that irks me and thats why to me she should be shunned because it shows she did not learn the lesson or show remorse
How do you know this is true/correct? You only have OP's version.
My take is - the law has taken its course, as long as she is no longer an offender and she is doing a decent job, go for it.
But really, OP who cares? We all take instant like/dislike to all kinds of people, that is our gut/prejudice etc. who you choose to spend your money with is up to you, you do not need to justify it. Do we need to be involved in your navel gazing?
sec offender
Demi?
there are zero circumtances where a teacher having sex with a underage pupil is acceptable
Agreed, but that isn’t what happened here. The boy was 16 at the time. Abuse of power yes, but not statutory rape, hence the suspended, relatively short, sentence I guess.
but not statutory rape
Do you live in the US?
We don’t have a charge of statutory rape, it’s rape if there is no consent and if a child is under 13 there’s no defence of consent under SOA 2003
The boy was 16 at the time. Abuse of power yes, but not statutory rape
We don’t have a charge of statutory rape
Presumably it was a reference to Age Of Consent, which I believe is revised upwards to 18 where someone is in a position of trust. Also the sexting or sexual communication is itself illegal if the recipient is under 18.
It’s a matter for the courts. I don’t see that she presents any risk to your wife or you. Nor are you facilitating and further risk by using her services.
She’s been found guilty and she’s taken the consequence. It’s not your place to add to that. That’s just pitchforks.
You never done owt you regret? Or reacted badly when called out on it? I’m no a religious chap but that stuff about he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that seems to fit here.
But really, OP who cares? We all take instant like/dislike to all kinds of people, that is our gut/prejudice etc. who you choose to spend your money with is up to you, you do not need to justify it. Do we need to be involved in your navel gazing?
It's just a question, we have all sorts of moral debates on STW. TBH, my decision to stop using her was 90% practical and 10% nonse related and it was 2 months or so ago.
I thought it would be an interesting discussion away from the usual Covid / Brexit / eBike stuff, I'm sorry you felt obligated to join in against your will.
I remember this case as it was local and being a teacher too it created a bit of discussion. About if there was gender bias in the sentence and about if society view the offence the same this way around. She also didn't come over too well at the time. A bit deluded and to be frank not taking responsibility by acknowledging she and the lad were not any adult and minor as she was in a position of responsibility. That is what rankled those in the profession most about it. At the time I remember thinking she really needed help. Her 'I'm the victim' assertions at the time were about the boy having feelings towards her (or so she thought) and messing her around. It was a bit pathetic really. So arguably not the strongest, the most rational or best placed to handle post conviction hassle.
My thoughts
You didn't sack her.
I'm assuming as you were stopping using her service anyway your real issue is looking like you are being judgemental about her conviction now as you are stopping at at a time when this has come up. Just one of those things.
Should the convicted out themselves at every opportunity - no. It's not going to serve the world much good. I'd rather not pay for her benefits for the rest of my days. She needs to be able to make a living as long as it is not with minors and if she is earning more than you'd like - tough. In a similar vein I'd quite like convicted muggers to be able to earn an honest crust and not to have to resort back to violence and crime.
Do men with similar convictions keep in gainful employment afterwards too - Google Brett Sutton.
Abuse of power yes, but not statutory rape, hence the suspended, relatively short, sentence I guess.
That's not what she was charged with, iirc. (It was fairly well publicised.)